Consultation Paper; Dated: 24.03.2026

SEBI has released a consultation paper proposing to introduce gift cards or gift prepaid payment instruments (PPIs) for investments in Mutual Funds. The proposal involves allowing the purchaser of Gift Card/Gift PPI to gift such an instrument, which can be utilised by the recipient of Gift Card/Gift PPI to subscribe to mutual fund units. Gift Card/ Gift PPI is expected to improve financial inclusion through the onboarding of new investors in the mutual fund space.

These are the following uses of e-wallets for investment in mutual funds:

(a) Mutual funds (MFs)/Asset management Companies (AMCs) are allowed to enter into arrangements with issuers of PPIs for facilitating payment from e-wallets to mutual fund schemes.

(b) MFs/AMCs must ensure that extant regulations, such as cut-off timings, time stamping, etc., are complied with for investment in MFs using e-wallets.

(c) Redemption proceeds must only be made in the bank account of the investor/unit holder.

(d) Total subscription through e-wallet and cash for an investor is restricted to INR 50,000 per MF per FY (financial year).

(e) E-wallets must not offer any incentives such as cashback, vouchers etc., directly or indirectly for investing in MFs.

(f) MFs/AMCs must ensure that only amounts loaded into the e-wallet through cash, debit card, or net banking can be used for subscription to MF schemes. Credit cards, cash back, and promotional schemes cannot be used.

(g) MFs/AMCs must also comply with the requirement of no third-party payment norm for investments made using e-wallets.

PPI instruments are governed under the RBI Master Directions on Prepaid Payment Instruments (PPIs). The relevant provisions are summarised as follows:

(a) Banks and non-bank entities can issue PPIs after obtaining the necessary approval/authorisation from the RBI under the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007.

(b) PPI is defined as “Instruments that facilitate the purchase of goods and services, financial services, remittance facilities, etc., against the value stored therein.

(c) PPI can be loaded by cash, bank account, debit card, credit card, etc. No interest is payable on PPI balances.

(d) PPI issuer must caution the PPI holder at reasonable intervals, during the 45 days’ before expiry of the validity period of the PPI.

These are the Specific guidelines for Gift PPI under the RBI Master Directions:

(a) The maximum value of each such prepaid payment gift instrument (Gift PPI) must not exceed INR 10,000/-. Such an instrument must not be reloadable.

(b) The PPI issuer must maintain KYC details of the purchaser of Gift PPI.

(c) PPI issuer must adopt a risk-based approach, duly approved by its Board, in deciding the number of such instruments which can be issued to a customer, transaction limits, etc.

(d) Cash-out or funds transfer must not be permitted for such an instrument. However, the funds may be transferred back to the source account upon the PPI holder’s consent.

Click Here To Read The Full Update 

The post SEBI Proposes Gift Cards for Mutual Fund Investments appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

The Lok Sabha has passed the Finance Bill, 2026 on 25 March 2026, marking a key step in the legislative process for implementing the Union Budget proposals.

1. Retention of Original Proposals

The Finance Bill, as passed by the Lok Sabha, largely retains the provisions that were introduced in the original Finance Bill, 2026.

This indicates broad continuity in the Government’s proposed tax and fiscal framework.

2. Amendments to Income-tax Laws

While most proposals remain unchanged, certain amendments have been made to:

• The Income-tax Act, 1961, and
• The Income-tax Act, 2025

These amendments are expected to refine and clarify specific provisions within the direct tax framework.

3. Awaiting Final Text

The official copy of the Finance Bill, 2026 as passed by the Lok Sabha is currently awaited.

Once released, it will provide:

• The exact text of amendments
• Detailed insights into changes made during the legislative process

4. Next Steps

Following passage in the Lok Sabha, the Bill will:

• Be considered by the Rajya Sabha, and
• Upon approval, receive Presidential assent to become law

5. Significance

The passage of the Finance Bill is crucial as it:

• Gives legal effect to the Union Budget proposals
• Determines taxation framework and fiscal measures for the upcoming financial year

Overall, the development signals progression toward finalisation of the tax and economic policy roadmap for FY 2026–27.

The post Lok Sabha Passes the Finance Bill 2026 Incorporating Over 30 Amendments appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Case Details: Management of Steel Authority of India vs. Shambhu Prasad Singh [2026] 184 taxmann.com 407 (SC)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• S.V.N. Bhatti & Pankaj Mithal, JJ.
• Ashok Anand, Anshul Rai, AORs, Moni Cinmoy, Rakesh Kumar Singh, Mallika Ranjan & Raunaq Singh, Advs. for the Appellant.
• Chandan Kumar, Anshuman Siddharth Nayak, Ashok Anand, AORs, N. S. Dalal, Devesh Pratap Singh, Rahul Kulhare, Baibhaw Gahlaut, Krishan Mourya, Divya Prakash Arya, Ratnadeep Raha, Mrs Garima Yadav, Seemab Qayyum, Kumar Shivam, Moni Cinmoy, Rakesh Kumar Singh, Somanatha Padhan, Akash Kakade, Kameshwar Gumber, Ajay Gupta & Mukul Dev Mishra, Advs. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the respondent was allotted a staff quarter, and through representations made between 11-9-2007 and 20-9-2010, the ex-employees, including the respondent, requested that the management allow retention of the allotted quarter beyond the permissible period under the rules of retention. The management, instead of accepting the request to retain the allotted quarter post-retirement, issued notices calling upon the ex-employees to vacate and hand over possession to the management.

The respondent filed a writ petition challenging the notice of eviction, which was dismissed. The said writ petition was dismissed on 28-7-2016, following the order dated 24-1-2014 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court.

On 15-12-2020, in S.L.P. (C) No. 11025 of 2020, the Supreme Court took a different view and observed that regulating the discretion of management to adjust the penal rent payable from the gratuity was misplaced.

The management, relying on the order dated 15-12-2020, preferred civil review before the Division Bench to review the order dated 20-1-2020. Through the impugned order, the civil review petitions have been dismissed.

It was noted that under rule 3.2.1(c) of the SAIL Gratuity Rules, 1978, management is expressly empowered to withhold the gratuity amount payable to an ex-employee, or his nominee/legal heirs in the event of death, for non-compliance with SAIL’s rules, including non-vacation of management’s accommodation.

Further, it was noted that no interest shall be payable on the gratuity amount so withheld during the period of unauthorised occupation.

Supreme Court Held

The Supreme Court observed that where an ex-employee failed to vacate staff quarters allotted to them during their service, and thus, retained the said quarters beyond the permissible period under the SAIL’s policy, management was entitled to withhold their gratuity amount payable to them for non-compliance with the company’s rules.

The Supreme Court held that a reasonable sum of Rs. 1,000 per month was to be fixed as rent for the retention period beyond the grace period permissible under the SAIL’s policy. Further, no interest was to be paid on the gratuity amount so withheld during the period of unauthorised occupation.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Order of High Court of Jharkhand in Civil Review No. 45 of 2021, dated 16-05-2024
• LPA No. 561 of 2017, dated 20.01.2020 (para 18) set aside.

List of Cases Referred to

• Ram Naresh Singh v. Bokaro Steel Ltd. [2021] 3 taxmann.com 1859 (SC) (para 8)
• SECRETARY, O.N.G.C. Ltd. v. V.U. Warrier 2005 taxmann.com 2288 (SC) (para 14).

The post SAIL Can Withhold Gratuity for Non-Vacation of Quarters | SC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Bill No. 97 of 2026, Dated: 25.03.2026

The Government has introduced the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Bill, 2026 (FCRA Amendment Bill, 2026) to strengthen the regulatory framework governing foreign contributions and related assets.

The Bill seeks to address compliance gaps, improve oversight, and prevent misuse of foreign funds.

1. Framework for Vesting and Management of Assets

A key feature of the Bill is the introduction of a structured mechanism for vesting, management, and disposal of foreign contributions and assets.

• A Designated Authority will be empowered to manage such assets
• The framework provides for both:

1. 1. Provisional vesting, and
   2. Permanent vesting

This ensures regulatory control over assets in cases of non-compliance or misuse.

2. Timelines for Utilisation of Foreign Contributions

The Bill introduces specific timelines for utilisation of foreign contributions, ensuring that:

• Funds are used within a defined period
• Idle or misused funds are minimised

3. Cessation of Registration

The amendments introduce provisions relating to cessation of registration, which:

• Define circumstances under which registration may cease
• Provide clarity on consequences for entities receiving foreign contributions

4. Restrictions During Suspension

During the period of suspension of registration, the Bill:

• Restricts handling and use of foreign contribution assets
• Ensures that funds are not misused while regulatory action is ongoing

5. Rationalisation of Penalties

The Bill proposes to rationalise penalties, making the enforcement framework:

• More proportionate
• Better aligned with the nature and severity of violations

6. Prior Approval for Investigations

A significant compliance safeguard introduced is:

• Requirement of prior approval of the Central Government for initiating investigations

This aims to ensure controlled and accountable enforcement action.

7. Objective of the Amendment

The FCRA Amendment Bill, 2026 aims to:

• Strengthen monitoring and control of foreign contributions
• Prevent misuse and diversion of funds
• Enhance transparency and accountability
• Provide a clear and structured regulatory framework for enforcement

Overall, the Bill represents a move towards a more robust and structured governance regime for foreign contribution regulation in India.

Click Here To Read The Full Update

The post FCRA Amendment Bill 2026 Introduced to Tighten Controls appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Issue No. I/7648/2026, Dated: 23.03.2026

The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has issued informal guidance on the permissibility of switching clients from distribution to advisory services by an entity registered as an Investment Adviser (IA).

1. Background of the Query

A company sought clarification on whether existing clients could be moved from distribution services to advisory services without liquidating their current holdings.

2. Mandatory Client-Level Segregation

SEBI clarified that under the SEBI (Investment Advisers) Regulations, 2013:

• Client-level segregation is mandatory
• A client cannot simultaneously avail advisory and distribution services within the same group

This requirement is intended to prevent conflict of interest and ensure clear demarcation of roles.

3. No Switching Between Services

SEBI further clarified that:

• Switching a client from distribution to advisory services (or vice versa) is not permitted within the same group structure

This restriction applies irrespective of whether the client continues to hold existing investments.

4. Treatment of Existing Holdings

• Existing investments may continue and are not required to be liquidated
• However, the service relationship cannot be altered from distribution to advisory (or vice versa) within the same group

5. Implications for Investment Advisers

Entities must ensure:

• Strict segregation of advisory and distribution clients
• Clear internal controls to avoid overlap of services
• Full compliance with regulatory requirements to prevent conflicts

6. Objective of the Clarification

The guidance reinforces SEBI’s intent to:

• Maintain transparency and independence in advisory services
• Eliminate conflicts of interest between advisory and distribution models
• Protect investor interests through clear service boundaries

Overall, the clarification underscores that service models must remain distinct at the client level, even if existing investments continue unchanged.

Click Here To Read The Full Update

The post Client-Level Segregation Mandatory – Advisory-Distribution Switching Banned | SEBI appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Case Details: Tvl. Kavitha Litho Press vs. Deputy State Tax Officer, Tuticorin - [2026] 184 taxmann.com 366 (Madras)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Krishnan Ramasamy, J.
• Raja Karthikeyan for the Petitioner.
• R. Suresh Kumar, AGP for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner was subjected to assessment proceedings wherein a show cause notice (SCN) was uploaded on the GST portal. It was contended that no original notice was served and that it had no knowledge of such notice, resulting in failure to file a reply within the prescribed time. The jurisdictional officer proceeded to pass assessment and summary orders ex parte without granting a personal hearing. It was submitted that mere uploading of the notice on the portal, without resorting to other statutory modes of service under Section 169 of the CGST Act, rendered the service ineffective and led to the denial of the opportunity of hearing. The matter was placed before the High Court.

High Court Held

The High Court held that although uploading a notice on the GST portal is a recognised mode of service under Section 169 of the CGST Act, where no response is received, the jurisdictional officer under the CGST Act is required to adopt alternative statutory modes to ensure effective service. It was observed that failure to use such alternate modes, particularly when the assessee claims a lack of knowledge. The Court held that passing of assessment orders without ensuring effective service and without granting a personal hearing violates the principles embedded in Section 75 of the CGST Act. Accordingly, the impugned assessment and summary orders were set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication with a direction to provide an opportunity of personal hearing, subject to the deposit of 25 per cent of the disputed tax.

The post GST Portal Service Alone Insufficient – Assessment Order Set Aside | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

1. Introduction

The classification of interest on delayed payment of statutory dues, such as GST, TDS, or local taxes, has emerged as a recurring area of interpretational challenge under the Ind AS framework. While the terminology used in law often labels such charges as “interest,” their presentation in financial statements is not driven merely by nomenclature. Instead, it requires an evaluation grounded in accounting principles, particularly those relating to the substance of the transaction. The guidance provided in ITFG Bulletin 17 (Issue 8) reinforces that such classification is inherently judgmental and depends on the nature of the charge.

2. Regulatory Framework and Accounting Lens

Schedule III to the Companies Act, 2013 prescribes the presentation format for the statement of profit and loss and specifically requires separate disclosure of finance costs, which include interest and other borrowing-related expenses. However, the Schedule does not explicitly address whether interest arising on delayed payment of statutory dues should be included within this category. This absence of direct guidance has led to diversity in practice.

To address such practical implementation issues arising under Ind AS, the Ind AS Transition Facilitation Group (ITFG), constituted by the ICAI, issues clarifications in the form of bulletins. While ITFG bulletins do not have the same authoritative status as standards, they are highly persuasive in practice and are widely relied upon by preparers, auditors, and regulators for interpreting grey areas.

The ITFG in its Bulletin 17 (Issue 8)clarified that delayed payment of taxes effectively creates an interest-bearing liability, and therefore, the entity must evaluate the nature of the interest being charged. The key determinant identified is whether the interest is:

(a) Compensatory in nature, i.e., representing consideration for the time value of money due to delayed payment, or

(b) Penal in nature, i.e., imposed as a punishment for non-compliance with statutory provisions

If the interest is compensatory, it aligns with the concept of interest cost and should be presented as part of finance costs under Schedule III. On the other hand, if the charge is penal, it should be classified under “Other Expenses”, as it does not represent a financing element.

This ITFG clarification effectively bridges the gap between the legal framework and accounting principles by emphasising that presentation should reflect substance over nomenclature.

3. Conceptual Distinction: Compensatory vs Penal

The central distinction lies between compensatory and penal charges. Compensatory interest arises when an entity retains funds beyond the due date and pays an additional amount calculated over time. Economically, this mirrors a borrowing arrangement, even though no formal loan exists. Penal charges, on the other hand, are imposed as a consequence of failure to comply with statutory provisions and are not linked to the duration of delay in a meaningful way.

This distinction is critical because it determines whether the expense reflects a financing decision or an operational lapse. The ITFG guidance emphasises that this evaluation must be made based on the facts of each case, rather than applying a uniform rule.

Let’s understand the case with some illustrations:

Illustration 1

Consider Delta Logistics Limited, which had an outstanding GST liability of ₹120 crore. Due to working capital constraints, the company delayed payment by six months. As per GST law, interest was charged at a fixed annual rate, resulting in an additional outflow of ₹10 crore.

In this scenario, the interest is directly linked to the period of delay and the amount outstanding. The charge effectively compensates the government for the deferred receipt of funds. From a substance perspective, Delta Logistics has enjoyed the use of ₹120 crore for six months and is paying a cost for that benefit. This aligns closely with the concept of interest as understood in finance.

Accordingly, such interest should be classified as a “Finance Cost”, as it represents the time value of money rather than an operational expense.

Illustration 2

Alpha Retail Limited is company engaged in manufacturing of automobiles. The company failed to file its GST returns within the prescribed timeline. As a result, it was required to pay a fixed late filing fee of ₹50 lakh, irrespective of the amount of tax payable or the duration of delay beyond a threshold.

In this case, the charge is not linked to the time value of money or the use of funds. Instead, it is imposed as a deterrent against non-compliance. The absence of a time-based calculation and its punitive intent clearly indicate that it is not a financing cost.

Therefore, this amount should be classified under “Other Expenses”, reflecting its penal nature.

Illustration 3

Gamma Infra Limited is a company engaged in the publication of books. The company delayed payment of municipal taxes amounting to ₹60 crore. In response to such delay, the local authority levied, a time-based charge of ₹4 crore calculated monthly on the outstanding amount and an additional fixed penalty of ₹30 lakh for non-compliance with procedural requirements

In the extant case,₹4 crore represents a compensatory charge for delayed payment and should be treated as a finance cost. The ₹30 lakh, being penal in nature, should be classified under other expenses.

If the company were to present the entire ₹4.3 crore under a single head, it would obscure the true nature of these expenses and reduce the transparency of financial reporting. This example highlights the importance of segregation and careful evaluation.

Click Here To Read The Full Story

The post Ind AS | Interest on Delayed Statutory Payments – Finance Cost or Other Expense? appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Circular No 01/2026, dated 23-03-2026

The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has issued a clarification regarding the authority empowered to condone delay in filing Form No. 10A for registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(i) of the Income-tax Act.

1. Background of the Provision

• Section 12A(1)(ac)(i) requires trusts or institutions seeking registration to file Form No. 10A within the prescribed time.
• The Finance Act, 2024 inserted a proviso allowing condonation of delay in filing such applications.

Under this proviso, the delay may be condoned if the authority is satisfied that there was a reasonable cause.

2. Issue Requiring Clarification

There was ambiguity regarding which authority is empowered to condone the delay, specifically whether:

• The jurisdictional Principal Commissioner/Commissioner of Income-tax, or
• The Director of Income-tax (Centralised Processing Centre), Bengaluru

would exercise such powers.

3. CBDT Clarification

To address this ambiguity, CBDT has clarified that:

• The jurisdictional Principal Commissioner of Income-tax or Commissioner of Income-tax shall have the authority to condone delay in filing Form No. 10A.

4. Objective of the Clarification

The clarification aims to:

• Prevent genuine hardship to trusts and institutions
• Ensure that eligible entities are not denied registration solely due to procedural delays
• Provide clarity in administrative jurisdiction for condonation requests

5. Implications for Trusts and Institutions

• Applications for condonation of delay must be made to the jurisdictional PCIT/CIT
• Trusts must demonstrate reasonable cause for delay
• Eligible entities can still obtain registration benefits despite delayed filing, subject to approval

Overall, the clarification ensures a practical and taxpayer-friendly approach while maintaining procedural discipline under the registration framework.

Click Here To Read The Full Circular

The post CIT Can Condone Delay in Filing Form 10A for Section 12A Registration | CBDT appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Dindayal Dhandaria – [2026] 184 taxmann.com 482 (Article)

1. Introduction

The Finance Bill, 2026 (“the Bill”) is notable not only for its decriminalisation initiatives but also for ushering in a significant shift in the taxation framework governing unexplained income. The proposed amendments to sections 115BBE, 270AA and 271AAC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the 1961 Act”), and the corresponding provisions under sections 195, 439 and 440 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 (“the 2025 Act”), reflect a conscious attempt to rebalance the competing objectives of deterrence and voluntary compliance.

While the reduction in the rate of tax from 60 per cent to 30 per cent appears, at first glance, to dilute the rigour of the existing regime, the simultaneous strengthening of penalty provisions ensures that the overall framework remains stringent in cases where unexplained income is detected by the tax authorities. The amendments thus introduce a differentiated approach—lenient for voluntary disclosure, but significantly harsher upon detection.

2. Evolution of Law on Unexplained Income

Sections 68 to 69D of the 1961 Act deal with unexplained cash credits, investments, money, expenditure and similar items. Historically, such amounts, once added to income, were taxed at normal rates applicable to the assessee. This allowed taxpayers, in certain situations, to mitigate tax liability through loss set-off or lower slab rates.

To address this anomaly, section 115BBE was introduced by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from Assessment Year 2013–14, creating a separate taxation regime for such income at a flat rate of 30 per cent. However, the absence of an explicit bar on set-off initially led to litigation.

A decisive shift occurred post-demonetisation in 2016. Through the Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 2016, the tax rate was increased to 60 per cent, loss set-off was expressly disallowed, and section 271AAC was introduced to impose a penalty of 10 per cent of tax. The effective burden rose to approximately 84 per cent, rendering the provision one of the most stringent in the statute.

While this regime was justified in the extraordinary context of demonetisation, its continued application led to unintended consequences, including excessive litigation and reluctance among taxpayers to settle disputes.

3. Structural Issue – Nature of Tax—Normal vs. Punitive

A fundamental conceptual issue underlying section 115BBE is whether it imposes a normal tax or a punitive levy.

Sections 68 to 69D are essentially evidentiary provisions. They do not define a head of income but operate where the explanation offered by the assessee is found unsatisfactory. However, section 115BBE treats such income as a separate taxable block, effectively imposing a punitive rate solely on the basis of failure of explanation, rather than the intrinsic nature of the income.

This has led to recurring disputes, particularly where the impugned amount can reasonably be linked to business activity. Courts and tribunals have generally adopted a fact-based approach, holding that where the source of income can be attributed to business operations—such as unrecorded sales or excess stock—the provisions of section 115BBE may not automatically apply. Conversely, where the source remains unexplained, taxation under the special regime is justified.

4. Existing Legal Framework

4.1 Under the 1961 Act

Section 115BBE applies in two distinct situations:

• where income referred to in sections 68 to 69D is disclosed by the assessee in the return; and
• where such income is determined by the Assessing Officer.

In both cases, the income is taxed at 60 per cent (plus surcharge and cess), with no deduction or set-off permitted. However, penalty under section 271AAC at 10 per cent of tax applies only where the income is determined by the Assessing Officer, and not where it is voluntarily declared.

4.2 Under the 2025 Act

The 2025 Act retains this dual structure through sections 195 and 439, continuing the distinction between voluntary disclosure and detection-based taxation.

Click Here To Read The Full Article

The post Finance Bill 2026 | New Tax Rules on Unexplained Income Explained appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source

Press Release No.18/2026, Dated: 23.03.2026

At its meeting held on 23 March 2026, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) approved a series of regulatory reforms aimed at improving ease of doing business, strengthening market efficiency, and enhancing regulatory clarity.

1. Measures Relating to Alternative Investment Funds (AIFs)

1.1 Retention of Liquidation Proceeds

SEBI has permitted AIFs to retain liquidation proceeds under specified conditions, providing operational flexibility during fund wind-down and distribution processes.

1.2 Introduction of ‘Inoperative Fund’ Framework

An ‘inoperative fund’ framework has been introduced to address situations where funds are unable to proceed with operations or deployment, ensuring better regulatory handling and compliance clarity.

2. Reforms for Foreign Portfolio Investors (FPIs)

2.1 Net Settlement Mechanism

SEBI has approved the introduction of net settlement for FPIs, which will:

• Improve capital efficiency
• Reduce settlement-related operational complexities
• Enhance overall market liquidity and ease of transactions

3. Changes in Social Impact Investment Framework

3.1 Reduction in Minimum Investment Threshold

The minimum investment threshold for Social Impact Funds has been reduced, with the objective of:

• Increasing investor participation
• Promoting impact investing and social finance
• Broadening access to such investment avenues

4. Amendments to InvITs and REITs Regulations

SEBI has approved amendments relating to:

• Infrastructure Investment Trusts (InvITs)
• Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs)

These changes are aimed at improving operational flexibility, governance standards, and investor participation in these instruments.

5. Revisions to ‘Fit and Proper’ Criteria

SEBI has also approved amendments to the ‘fit and proper’ criteria, which govern eligibility and integrity standards for market participants, to enhance regulatory clarity and consistency.

6. Objective of the Reforms

The measures collectively aim to:

• Enhance ease of doing business in the securities market
• Improve regulatory clarity and consistency
• Promote market efficiency and investor participation
• Strengthen the overall regulatory framework across investment vehicles

These decisions reflect SEBI’s continued efforts to balance market development with robust regulatory oversight.

Click Here To Read The Full Press Release

The post SEBI Board Approves Key Reforms on AIFs | FPIs | SIF | InvITs appeared first on Taxmann Blog.

source