<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
(Income Tax, GST, Central Excise, Custom Duty, DGFT, SEBI, MCA, IBBI, RBI)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
(Click the Link for Notification\/ Circular as issued)<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Exemptions to <\/strong>Jhansi Development Authority:<\/strong> Jhansi Development Authority, an authority constituted under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, has been notified under section 10(46A) for exemption on its income, provided the authority continues to operate for specified purpose under section 10(46A)(a) of Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (Link: Income Tax Notification 150\/2025 Dated 08\/10\/2025)<\/em><\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Advisory, GST Return Filing and IMS Changes: <\/strong>The Goods and Services Tax Network (GSTN) has issued an advisory to correct misinformation regarding changes to GST return filing post-1st<\/sup> October 2025, concerning the Invoice Management System (IMS). It clarifies that there is no change in the auto-population of Input Tax Credit (ITC) from GSTR-2B to GSTR-3B, and this mechanism remains untouched by the IMS implementation. Further, GSTR-2B generation will continue automatically on the 14th of every month. Taxpayers retain the ability to act within IMS even after GSTR-2B generation, up until the GSTR-3B filing, and can regenerate GSTR-2B if necessary. <\/p>\n\n\n\n — The changes are noted for Credit Note handling effective October 2025, where recipient taxpayers will have the option to keep a Credit Note pending for a specified period. Upon acceptance, recipients gain the flexibility to manually adjust the reversal amount, reducing ITC only to the extent of its availment. <\/p>\n\n\n\n (Link: GSTN Advisory Dated 08\/10\/2025)<\/em><\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n SC upholds maximum of three adjournments may be granted but does not mandate granting all three:<\/strong>Case of MHJ Metaltechs Pvt Ltd vs CGST, SC Judgement Dated 8th<\/sup> October 2025.<\/em> The apex court held that limitation on adjournments under Section 75(5) of the CGST Act is mandatory in allowing a maximum of three adjournments, without guaranteeing that all such adjournments must be granted. It further held that denial of adjournments beyond statutory limits and supply of illegible documents to the assessee do not violate principles of natural justice in GST adjudication proceedings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (Link: SC Judgement Dated 08\/10\/2025)<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n SC Affirms Stock Discrepancies require GST Assessment, Not Confiscation:<\/strong> Case of Additional Commissioner vs Dayal Product, SC Judgement Dated 1st<\/sup> September 2025.<\/em> The apex court held that where a stock discrepancy is discovered during the survey of a registered dealer, the initiation of confiscation and penalty proceedings under Section 130 of CGST Act is unsustainable. Such issues must be addressed through assessment and recovery proceedings under Sections 73 or 74 of CGST Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (Link: SC Judgement Dated 01\/09\/2025)<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n No Notification\/ Circular during the Week.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Fixation of Tariff Value of Edible Oils, Brass Scrap, Areca Nut, Gold and Silver: <\/strong>CBDT notified the Tariff Values of Edible Oils, Brass Scrap, Areca Nut, Gold and Silver, which shall come into force w.e.f. 10th<\/sup>October 2025. The tariff value for crude palm oil is set at USD 1108 per metric ton, while gold and silver have tariff values of USD 1300 per 10 grams and USD 1515 per kilogram, respectively. The tariff value for areca nuts is fixed at USD 7463 per metric ton.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (Link: Customs Notification 64\/2025 (NT) Dated 09\/10\/2025)<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Auto-approval of Incentive Bank Account and IFSC Code Registration:<\/strong> Presently, the exporters had to register their incentive bank account for IGST refunds and drawbacks at every port where they intended to transact, a process that was governed by set timelines for approval by port officers. The Board has now decided to implement an auto-approval system. If an Importer Exporter Code (IEC) has already had a specific incentive bank account and IFSC code approved at any one customs location, the system will automatically approve the subsequent requests for the exact same combination at different customs locations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n (Link: Customs Circular 24\/2025 Dated 07\/10\/2025)<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Implementation of Sea Cargo Manifest and Transhipment Regulations (SCMTR):<\/strong> The Circular details the ongoing implementation of the Sea Cargo Manifest and Transhipment Regulations (SCMTR). It states that the Sea Arrival Manifest (SAM) and Sea Entry Inward (SEI) messages have been fully operational nationwide. Similarly, the Sea Departure Manifest (SDM), along with its amendment message, was implemented across India. To ensure comprehensive adoption, the transitional provisions have been extended for SCMTR until 31st<\/sup>December 2025. A dedicated Task Force is monitoring the process, and Chief Commissioners are requested to conduct weekly outreach programs to sensitize stakeholders and facilitate a smooth transition. <\/p>\n\n\n\n (Link: Customs Circular 25\/2025 Dated 08\/10\/2025)<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n New Import Regulations for Solar and Wind Energy Components: <\/strong>The notification provides for mandatory registration on the Renewable Energy Equipment Import Monitoring System (REEIMS) of the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy for specific items. These includes toughened (tempered) safety glass and photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled in modules or panels when exclusively used for solar energy projects. Similarly, components for wind-operated electricity generation, such as certain towers, bearing housings, gears, generating sets, and parts of electric motors, will also require REEIMS registration. It specifies that these registration requirements apply to imports via air cargo, sea cargo, and land routes. <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n (DGFT Notification 40\/2025 Dated 10\/10\/2025)<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Amendment to Import Policy conditions for Sulfadiazine API: <\/strong>The import of Sulfadiazine Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API), with a CIF (Cost, Insurance, and Freight) value of less than Rs. 1,774 per kg is now classified as \u2018Restricted\u2019 until 30th<\/sup> September 2026. This restriction applies specifically to HS codes 29359013 and 29359090, which cover various sulphonamide compounds, including Sulfadiazine. The Minimum Import Price (MIP) condition will not be applicable for imports made by Advance Authorization holders, Export Oriented Units (EOUs), and units operating within Special Economic Zones (SEZs), subject to condition that these imported inputs are not subsequently sold into the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA). <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n (DGFT Notification 41\/2025 Dated 10\/10\/2025)<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n New SION for Mobile Phone Exports, Streamlining Advance Authorisation Process:<\/strong> DGFT announced the fixation of a new Standard Input Output Norm (SION) for mobile phones under the \u201cEngineering & Electronic Items\u201d product category and is set to streamline the export process for mobile phone manufacturers. The new SION C-2049 provides a detailed list of over 70 input items required for the manufacture of mobile phones, specifying the \u201cQuantity Allowed\u201d for each. This comprehensive list includes crucial components such as accelerometer sensors, acoustic filters, backlight LED driver chips, various connectors (BTB, cable, USB Type C), camera lenses and modules, capacitors, resistors, and a wide array of integrated circuits (ICs) like audio amplifiers, operational amplifiers, RF switches, and power management chips. The Regional Authorities (RAs) are now empowered to directly issue Advance Authorisations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n (DGFT Public Notice 25\/2025 Dated 10\/10\/2025)<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Revision of Block Deal Framework: <\/strong>Under the revised framework, stock exchanges may operate block deal windows within overall trading hours from 8:45 AM to 5:00 PM. Two specific windows are introduced, a Morning Block Deal Window from 8:45 AM to 9:00 AM, using the previous day\u2019s closing price as the reference, and an Afternoon Block Deal Window from 2:05 PM to 2:20 PM, using the volume-weighted average price (VWAP) from trades between 1:45 PM and 2:00 PM. Orders must remain within a \u00b13% price range of the reference price, and the minimum trade size is set at Rs 25 crore. All trades must result in delivery and cannot be reversed or squared off. Stock exchanges are also required to disclose transaction details, including the scrip name, client name, quantity, and traded price, after market hours on the same day. <\/p>\n\n\n\n (Link: SEBI Circular Dated 08\/10\/2025)<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Consultation Paper on Stock Exchange Administration: <\/strong>The consultation paper proposes modifications to the Master Circular for Stock Exchanges and Clearing Corporations (MSECC) and the Master Circular for Commodity Derivatives Segment (MCD) reduce compliance burdens for Market Infrastructure Institutions (MIIs). The key proposed changes relates to Simplification of governance, Removal of obsolete norms, Harmonization and clarity of provisions, Delegation of authority, and Forward looking updates. <\/p>\n\n\n\n (Link: SEBI Consultation Paper Dated 08\/10\/2025)<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n No Notification\/ Circular during the Week.<\/p>\n\n\n\n SC, Successful Resolution Applicant cannot be forced to deal with claim that are not part of Resolution Plan:<\/strong> Case of Kalyani Transco vs Bhushan Power and Steel Limited, SC Judgement Dated 26th<\/sup>September 2025.<\/em> The apex court held that the Successful Resolution Applicant, cannot be forced to deal with claims that are not a part of the Request for Resolution Plan issued in terms of Section 25 of the IBC or a part of its Resolution Plan.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (Link: SC Judgement Dated 26\/09\/2025)<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n NCLAT, Monetisation not permitted since building plan of project not revalidated:<\/strong> Case of Anoop Kumar Srivastava vs Neerav Bhatnagar, NCLAT Delhi Judgement Dated 25th<\/sup> September 2025.<\/em> The appellate tribunal held that monetisation by sale of units is impermissible since building plan of the project has not been revalidated. When there is no visibility of the revalidation of the map, permitting the IRP to sale the unsold units and utilize the amount for construction of the project is an exercise which may not even commence due to absence of revalidation of the map. Accordingly, permission for monetisation not granted. <\/p>\n\n\n\n (Link: NCLAT Delhi Judgement Dated 25\/09\/2025)<\/em><\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n NCLAT, Dues against another Group company doesn\u2019t permit bank to retain securities of Corporate Debtor:<\/strong> Case of Industrial and Commercial Bank of China vs Anish Niranjan Nanavaty, NCLAT Delhi Judgement Dated 25th<\/sup> September 2025.<\/em> The appellate tribunal held that bank does not have any jurisdiction to retain the securities (i.e. fixed deposit amount) since Corporate Debtor was not part of any facility against which any amount is due. Thus, retention on ground that there were dues against another Group Company not justified. <\/p>\n\n\n\n (Link: NCLAT Delhi Judgement Dated 25\/09\/2025)<\/em><\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n NCLAT, Repeated non-appearance by a commercial litigant amounted to Gross Negligence, Disentitling Relief: <\/strong>Case of R Mall developers vs Lemon Chilli Veg Gourmet Foods LLP, NCLAT Delhi Judgement Dated 25th<\/sup> September 2025.<\/em> The appellate tribunal held that a commercial litigant could not evade the consequences of repeated non-appearance and negligence in prosecuting proceedings by shifting blame to counsel, and the Adjudicating Authority was justified in dismissing restoration applications under Rule 48 of the NCLT Rules, when the litigant demonstrated persistent lack of diligence. <\/p>\n\n\n\n (Link: NCLAT Delhi Judgement Dated 25\/09\/2025)<\/em><\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n NCLAT, Resolution plan rightly not approved since deed claimed by Corporate Debtor is unenforceable:<\/strong> Case of CoC of Jupitar Spun Pipes & Casting Pvt Ltd vs Bihar State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd, NCLAT Delhi Judgement Dated 19th<\/sup> September 2025.<\/em> The appellate tribunal held that order of Adjudicating Authority refusing approval of resolution plan justified since deed claimed by Corporate Debtor is doubtful and questionable and accordingly, asset cannot be treated as asset of Corporate Debtor. <\/p>\n\n\n\n (Link: NCLAT Delhi Judgement Dated 19\/09\/2025)<\/em><\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n RTI Appeal Dismissed as IBBI Not Required to Create New Information:<\/strong> The First Appellate Authority (FAA) noted that the RTI Act allows access only to information \u201cheld by or under the control of a public authority\u201d under Section 2(f) and 2(j). The FAA observed that all relevant file notings and communications related to the appellant\u2019s grievances had already been provided. Requests for opinions, analysis, or information not recorded by IBBI fell outside the scope of the Act and would disproportionately divert resources. Allegations regarding meeting procedures, resolution plans, and claims of fraud were either addressed through prior communications or were not held by the Board. Accordingly, FAA concluded that the CPIO responses were adequate and no further information was required to be created or furnished. <\/p>\n\n\n\n (Link: IBBI ED&FAA Order Dated 07\/10\/2025)<\/em><\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n RBI Expands Ombudsman Scheme to Co-operative Banks:<\/strong> The notification expand the scope of the Reserve Bank \u2013 Integrated Ombudsman Scheme 2021. It has directed that State Cooperative Banks and Central Cooperative Banks shall be treated as \u201cRegulated Entities\u201d under the Scheme. This extension ensures that these banks are now subject to the Scheme provisions for customer grievance redressal, except where specifically excluded. <\/p>\n\n\n\n (Link: RBI Notification Dated 07\/10\/2025,<\/em><\/a> <\/em>Press Release)<\/em><\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Updates on UNSC Sanctions List Under UAPA Compliance: <\/strong>MEA has informed about the UNSC amendments on its ISIL (Da\u2019esh) and Al-Qaida Sanctions List of individuals and entities, which are subject to the assets freeze, travel ban and arms embargo. Regulated Entities (REs) are advised to take note for necessary compliance in terms of Master Directions on KYC. <\/p>\n\n\n\n (Link: RBI Notification 92\/2025 Dated 09\/10\/2025)<\/em><\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Draft Consolidation of Regulations: <\/strong>RBI has undertaken a comprehensive exercise of consolidating the regulatory instructions, on \u2018as is\u2019 basis. The existing universe of regulatory instructions issued up to 9th<\/sup> October 2025 have been consolidated into 238 Master Directions, across 11 types of regulated entities on up to 30 functions \/ areas. Approximately 9000 circulars (including Master Circulars \/ Master Directions) will be repealed. This exercise is expected to significantly improve the accessibility of regulatory instructions for the regulated entities, thereby reducing their compliance cost. It will also improve the clarity on applicability of each instruction to a regulated entity. The feedback\/comments from stakeholders are invited. <\/p>\n\n\n\n (Link: RBI Press Release Dated 10\/10\/2025)<\/em><\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Draft RBI (Scheduled Commercial Banks- Capital Charge for Credit Risk\u2013 Standardised Approach) Directions: <\/strong>The Directions amend the existing standardised approach framework for calculating the capital charge for credit risk with the objective of enhancing its robustness, granularity, and risk sensitivity. The major revisions include, nuanced and granular risk weight treatment for exposures to corporates, MSMEs and real estate; inclusion of \u2018transactors\u2019 under regulatory retail category, where transactors are credit cards with timely repayments during the previous 12 months; revision in the credit conversion factors for reckoning the exposure for off- balance sheet exposures; and suitable adjustments to the risk weights applied to loans rated by credit rating agencies, depending on the default history of such loans for each rating agency, and due diligence by banks. The feedback\/comments from stakeholders are invited. <\/p>\n\n\n\n (Link: RBI Press Release Dated 07\/10\/2025<\/em><\/a>, <\/em>Draft Directions)<\/em><\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Draft RBI (Scheduled Commercial Banks and All India Financial Institutions- Asset Classification, Provisioning and Income Recognition) Directions: <\/strong>The proposed Directions seek to replace the incurred-loss-based provisioning framework with an Expected Credit Loss (ECL) based provisioning, subject to prudential floors. The key elements of the proposed framework include, introduction of staging criteria for asset classification under Expected Credit Loss (ECL) approach, while retaining the extant norms for Non-performing Asset (NPA) classification; specification of suitably calibrated prudential floors for broad exposure classes, separately under Stage-1, Stage-2 and Stage-3; alignment of the income recognition norms based on Effective Interest Rate (EIR) method; and broad principles on model risk management for implementing ECL models. The feedback\/comments from stakeholders are invited. <\/p>\n\n\n\n (Link: RBI Press Release Dated 07\/10\/2025<\/em><\/a>, <\/em>Draft Comm Banks<\/em><\/a>, <\/em>Draft AIFIs)<\/em><\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Draft RBI Ombudsman Scheme: <\/strong>The Reserve Bank Integrated Ombudsman Scheme (RB-IOS) launched in 2021, provides customers of Regulated Entities (REs) a speedy, cost-effective and expeditious alternate grievance redress mechanism. A review of the existing instructions has been undertaken to further strengthen the functioning of the Ombudsman. The feedback\/comments from stakeholders are invited. <\/p>\n\n\n\n (Link: RBI Press Release Dated 07\/10\/2025<\/em><\/a>, <\/em>Draft Scheme)<\/em><\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Draft Master Direction- RBI Internal Ombudsman for Regulated Entities: <\/strong>The Reserve Bank, Master Direction- Reserve Bank of India (Internal Ombudsman for Regulated Entities) issued in 2023, has institutionalized the Internal Ombudsman mechanism in various regulated entities (REs) for independent review of customer complaints that are being rejected. A review of the existing instructions has been undertaken to further strengthen the functioning of the Internal Ombudsman with a view to facilitating faster and meaningful resolution of customer grievances at the level of the REs. The feedback\/comments from stakeholders are invited. <\/p>\n\n\n\n (Link: RBI Press Release Dated 07\/10\/2025<\/em><\/a>, <\/em>Draft Directions)<\/em><\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n SC, No escape for signatory Trustee, Cheque dishonour complaint valid even if Trust not made accused:<\/strong> Case of Shankar Pada Thapa vs Vijaykumar Dineshchandra Agarwal, SC Judgement Dated 9th<\/sup>October 2025. <\/em>The apex court held that a cheque dishonour complaint under the Negotiable Instrument Act, (NI Act) is maintainable against a trustee who signed the cheque on behalf of a trust, even if the trust itself is not made an accused, since a trust is not a juristic person and liability rests on the signing trustee. <\/p>\n\n\n\n (Link: SC Judgement Dated 09\/10\/2025)<\/em><\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n SC, Securing Obligations, Clarifies Stamp Duty on Deeds Executed by Principal Debtors:<\/strong> Case of Godwin Construction Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner, SC Judgement Dated 8th<\/sup> October 2025. <\/em>The apex court held that the documents were mortgage deeds chargeable under Article 40 (Mortgage Deed) , not security bonds under Article 57 (Security Bond) of the Indian Stamp Act. Deficit stamp duty demands were validly raised. When an entity mortgages its own property to secure its own performance or loan repayment, Article 40 (Mortgage Deed) governs stamp duty computation. Only a document executed by a separate surety for another\u2019s obligations qualifies as a security bond. <\/p>\n\n\n\n (Link: SC Judgement Dated 08\/10\/2025)<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n SC, Tender Clause favouring Local Suppliers Struck Down:<\/strong> Case of Vinishma Technologies Pvt Ltd vs State of Chhattisgarh, SC Judgement Dated 6th<\/sup> October 2025. <\/em>The apex court struck down a Chhattisgarh Government tender condition that mandated bidders to show prior supply experience of at least \u20b96 crores to state government agencies in the past three years, as a prerequisite for participating in bids to supply sports kits to government schools in the state. The State by linking the eligibility criteria with past local supplies has created an artificial barrier, against the suppliers who had no past dealing with the State of Chhattisgarh.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (Link: SC Judgement Dated 06\/10\/2025)<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n HC allowed delay of 255 days in claim by EPFO:<\/strong> Case of Central Board of Trustees (EPF) vs Dy Registrar NCLT, HC Madras Judgement Dated 1st<\/sup> September 2025. <\/em>HC held that provident fund dues were protected by statute and, could not be denied to claimants on grounds of delay as it would defeat the object of protecting employees\u2019 social security. The court affirmed that the Central Board of Trustees (CBT) has the authority to collect outstanding provident fund dues, and these dues take precedence over the claims of other creditors during a company’s liquidation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n (Link: HC Madras Judgement Dated 01\/09\/2025)<\/em><\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n