<\/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 India-Belgium amended DTAA implemented to Curb Tax Evasion:<\/strong> The Ministry of Finance has announced the enforcement of the Protocol amending the 1993 Agreement between India and Belgium for the avoidance of double taxation and prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income. It revises the definition of competent authority\u201d under Article 3, broadening representation in both jurisdictions, and introduces a new definition for \u201ccriminal tax matters.\u201d Article 26 on \u201cExchange of Information\u201d has been replaced to expand the scope of information sharing between tax authorities. Similarly, Article 27 on \u201cAssistance in the Collection of Taxes\u201d has been substituted to provide for mutual assistance in recovery and conservancy of tax claims between both contracting states. <\/p>\n\n\n\n (Link: Income Tax Notification 160\/2025 Dated 10\/11\/2025)<\/em><\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Hari Shankar Singhania Elastomer & Tyre research Institute, Mysore <\/strong>gets Income Tax approval for scientific research<\/strong>: The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), has approved <\/em><\/strong>Hari Shankar Singhania Elastomer & Tyre research Institute, Mysore, for \u2018Scientific Research\u2019 under section 35(1)(iia) read with rule 5F of Income Tax, for a period of five years, starting from the AY 2022-23. It will enable the Institute to receive certain benefits, related to its scientific research activities. <\/p>\n\n\n\n (Link: Income Tax PCCI (Exemptions) Notification 04\/2025 Dated 12\/11\/2025)<\/em><\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n HC, Educational Consultancy Services to Foreign Universities not \u2018Intermediary\u2019, qualify as Export:<\/strong>Case of Commissioner of Delhi GST vs Global Opportunities Private Limited, HC Delhi, Judgement Dated 25th<\/sup>September 2025.<\/em> HC held that Indian Institution providing educational consultation to students in India and Foreign Educational Institution paying commission thereof cannot be considered as intermediary service. Accordingly, writ petition of revenue dismissed. <\/p>\n\n\n\n (Link: HC Delhi Judgement Dated 25\/09\/2025)<\/em><\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n AAR, GST not payable on Liquidated Damages in Bus Project:<\/strong> Case of JBM Ecolife Mobility Surat Private Limited, AAR Gujarat Ruling Dated 3rd<\/sup> November 2025.<\/em> AAR ruled that GST is npt payable on the liquidated damages paid by the applicant to SSL for various material defaults, breaches or non-performance of the obligations as per the terms and conditions of the Concession Agreement, under the provisions of GST law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (Link: AAR Gujarat Ruling Dated 03\/11\/2025)<\/em><\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n AAR, No ITC on GST paid for Industrial Land Lease due to Section 17(5)(d) Bar:<\/strong> Case of Agratas Energy Storage Solutions Pvt Ltd, AAR Gujarat Ruling Dated 3rd<\/sup> November 2025.<\/em> The applicant was granted leasehold rights by the Government of Gujarat for 50 years over an area measuring approximately 321 acres to carry out business activities including industrial construction. AAR held that \u201cland has been given on lease specifically for construction of the factory\u2026 purpose of land for industrial purpose cannot be changed\u201d. AAR ruled that Input Tax Credit (ITC) of GST paid on lease rental is not admissible to an assessee when the leased land is used for industrial construction. The ruling blocks ITC not only for the period during which factory construction takes place, but also for the periods before and after construction, as well as for repairs, maintenance and renovation activities and even with respect to the vacant portion of land that forms part of the leased industrial plot.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (Link: AAR Gujarat Ruling Dated 03\/11\/2025)<\/em><\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n AAR, Fusible Interlining Cotton Fabrics classifiable under Chapter 52:<\/strong> Case of Girish Pravinchandra Rathod, AAR Gujarat Ruling Dated 3rd<\/sup> November 2025.<\/em> AAR ruled that the product Fusible Interlining Cotton Fabrics is classifiable under Chapter 52.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (Link: AAR Gujarat Ruling Dated 03\/11\/2025)<\/em><\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n No Notification\/ Circular during the Week.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Export Duty removed on Molasses, Basic Custom Duty cut on Olive Oil:<\/strong> The Notification remove the export duty on cane molasses classified under HS 1703 10 00 by inserting a new entry granting a Nil rate. It also revises the duty structure for crude olive pomace oil under HS 1510 10 00 by substituting the earlier tariff entries and introducing a 15% basic customs duty. <\/p>\n\n\n\n (Link: Customs Notification 48\/2025 (T) Dated 14\/11\/2025)<\/em><\/a><\/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. 15th<\/sup>November 2025. The tariff value for crude palm oil is set at USD 1066 per metric ton, while gold and silver have tariff values of USD 1350 per 10 grams and USD 1739 per kilogram, respectively. The tariff value for areca nuts is fixed at USD 7142 per metric ton.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (Link: Customs Notification 74\/2025 (NT) Dated 14\/11\/2025)<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Anti-dumping Duty on <\/strong>Hot rolled flat products of alloy or non-alloy steel<\/strong> originating <\/strong>in or exported from Vietnam: <\/strong>Anti-dumping Duty has been imposed on imports of Hot rolled flat products of alloy or non-alloy steel originating in or exported from Vietnam and imported into India. The anti-dumping duty shall be effective for a period of five years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (Link: Customs Notification 32\/2025 (ADD) Dated 12\/11\/2025)<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Launch of Online Module for Permissions under Section 65 (MOOWR and MOOSWR):<\/strong> CBIC has operationalised a dedicated online module on ICEGATE 2.0 to streamline and simplify the submission of applications for permissions under Section 65 for MOOWR (Manufacture and Other Operations in Warehouse Regulations, 2019), applicable to warehouses licensed under Section 58 of the Customs Act and (b) MOOSWR (Manufacture and Other Operations in Special Warehouse Regulations), applicable to special warehouses licensed under Section 58A of the Customs Act. DG Systems has made available detailed User Manuals for both trade and departmental officers <\/p>\n\n\n\n (Link: Customs Circular 28\/2025 Dated 15\/11\/2025)<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Syncing of ITC (HS) Schedule-1 (Import Policy) with Finance Act 2025: <\/strong> DGFT vide notification no. 44\/2025 dated 15th<\/sup> October 2025, has amended the ITC (HS) 2022, Schedule-I (Import Policy) in sync with the Finance Act 2025. The list of ITC Codes and related Policy Conditions inserted\/deleted\/amended\/split\/merged is annexed as Annexure-I to the said notification. Further, the amendments in the Section Notes, Chapter-wise Main Notes, supplementary Notes, Chapter heading, sub- headings and description of codes are annexed as Annexure-II to the said notification. The custom officials be sensitized accordingly. <\/p>\n\n\n\n (Link: Customs Instructions 32\/2025 Dated 10\/11\/2025)<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n HC, CBIC to form uniform policy permitting or prohibiting import of products declared as body massagers:<\/strong> Case of Techsync vs Suptd of Customs, H<\/em>C Delhi, Judgement Dated 30th<\/sup> October 2025.<\/em> HC held that CBIC should conduct inter-ministerial consultation in respect of the uniform policy permitting or prohibiting import of products declared as \u2018body massagers\u2019 or sex toys. <\/p>\n\n\n\n (Link: HC Delhi Judgement Dated 30\/10\/2025)<\/em><\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Clarification on Redemption of Advance Authorisations impacted by erstwhile CGST Rule 96(10): <\/strong>The Circular clarifies redemption of Advance Authorisations (AAs) affected by the erstwhile CGST Rule 96(10) for imports made between 13th<\/sup> October 2017, and 9th<\/sup> January 2019. The rule restricted exporters from claiming IGST refund on exported goods if they had availed benefits under certain duty exemption notifications for procuring inputs. The DGFT clarified that Export Obligation Discharge Certificates (EODC) shall not be withheld if all other conditions are met in cases where (i) IGST was paid in cash on imports, (ii) no duty exemptions such as IGST or Compensation Cess were availed, or (iii) the pre-import condition was complied with. The clarification aligns with the Supreme Court judgment and subsequent Customs and DGFT circulars. <\/p>\n\n\n\n (DGFT Policy Circular 07\/2025 Dated 11\/11\/2025)<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Consultation Paper on amendments to SEBI ICDR Regulations, IPO reforms to simplify compliance and boost retail participation: <\/strong>It seeks to simplify compliance with lock-in requirements for pre-IPO shares, especially those under pledge, by introducing an enabling framework that allows depositories to treat pledged shares as \u201cnon-transferable\u201d during the lock-in period. It also reviews the need for the abridged prospectus, suggesting its replacement with a concise \u201cOffer Document Summary\u201d to improve investor understanding and accessibility of key disclosures. This summary would be hosted online by issuers, SEBI, exchanges, and lead managers. The Feedback\/ comments from stakeholders are invited.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (Link: SEBI Consultation Paper Dated 13\/11\/2025)<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n No Notification\/ Circular during the Week.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Discussion Paper on Strengthening Valuation process under IBC:<\/strong> The paper proposes major reforms to strengthen the valuation framework, by addressing inconsistencies, lack of standardization, and varied methodologies used in current valuation practices. The key proposals include standardizing valuation report formats and documentation, harmonizing valuation standards across CIRP, liquidation, PPIRP, and other processes, widening the definition of fair value to include intangible and synergistic business assets, and allowing appointment of a single valuer for smaller corporate debtors to reduce costs and delays. It also suggests introducing a Coordinator Valuer to integrate asset-class valuations into an aggregate fair value, improving accuracy and enterprise-level assessment. The Feedback\/ comments from stakeholders are invited.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (Link: IBBI Discussion Paper Dated 14\/11\/2025)<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n NCLAT, Removal of movable assets at leased premises allowable as objection of ownership not raised during liquidation:<\/strong> Case of Reliance Reality Limited vs Anup Kumar, NCLAT Delhi Judgement Dated 29th<\/sup>October 2025.<\/em> The appellate tribunal held that liquidator duly allowed to remove all the movable assets of the Corporate Debtor lying at the leased premises since appellant\/lessor never raised any objection regarding ownership of assets either during CIRP or during liquidation proceeding. <\/p>\n\n\n\n (Link: NCLAT Delhi Judgement Dated 29\/10\/2025)<\/em><\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n NCLAT, Liquidator to obtain prior permission for conduct of private sale mandated by Regulation 33(2)(d):<\/strong> Case of Orissa Alloy Steel Private Limited vs SM Steels and Power Limited, NCLAT Delhi Judgement Dated 6th<\/sup> November 2025.<\/em> The appellate tribunal held that in terms of regulation 33(2)(d) of the Liquidation Process Regulations (LPR), liquidator is required to obtain prior permission of the Adjudicating Authority for conduct of private sale. <\/p>\n\n\n\n (Link: NCLAT Delhi Judgement Dated 06\/11\/2025)<\/em><\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n NCLAT, Fixed Deposits create valid Security Interest, upholds ICICI Bank Secured Creditor Status:<\/strong>Case of ICICI Bank Limited vs RP of Organic Tea Pvt Ltd, NCLAT Delhi Judgement Dated 31st<\/sup> October 2025.<\/em>The appellate tribunal held that a bank, having extended overdraft and non-fund based facilities to Corporate Debtor against Fixed Deposit cash collateral, is to be treated as a secured financial creditor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (Link: NCLAT Delhi Judgement Dated 31\/10\/2025)<\/em><\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n IBBI suspended IP Vishnu Kant Kabra for improper CoC Formation:<\/strong> The Disciplinary Committee (DC) noted that the professional had included a related party, who was a partner in the corporate debtor, as a voting member in the CoC, violating Section 21(2) of the Code. It also found non-adherence to CIRP Regulations 6A and 13, noting failure to notify all creditors and to upload the updated list of creditors on the IBBI website. THE DC suspended the registration of IP for one year. <\/p>\n\n\n\n (Link: IBBI DC Order Dated 11\/11\/2025)<\/em><\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n RBI (Trade Relief Measures) Directions: <\/strong>The RBI has issued the RBI (Trade Relief Measures) Directions 2025, to ease debt servicing challenges faced by exporters affected by global trade disruptions. Regulated Entities may offer a moratorium on term-loan instalments and defer interest on working-capital facilities between 1st<\/sup> September and 31st<\/sup> December 2025, with interest accruing on a simple basis. Export credit tenure may be extended up to 450 days, and packing credit may be liquidated through alternate legitimate sources. These measures will not be treated as restructuring, and asset classification will exclude the moratorium period. <\/p>\n\n\n\n (Link: RBI Notification 96\/2025 Dated 14\/11\/2025)<\/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 97\/2025 Dated 14\/11\/2025)<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Export Proceeds Realisation timeline extended:<\/strong> The RBI has amended FEMA (Export of Goods and Services) Regulations, concerning export related payments and documentation. The Regulation 9 has been revised extends the period for realisation and repatriation of export proceeds by replacing the earlier limit of nine months with fifteen months. Similarly, Regulation 15 has been revised to extend the time period for submission of various export-related documents from one year to three years across multiple sub-regulations. <\/p>\n\n\n\n (Link: RBI FEMA Notification Dated 13\/11\/2025)<\/em><\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n RBI updates Repo Directions to include Municipal Debt Securities:<\/strong> RBI has issued the Master Direction- Repurchase Transactions (Repo) Directions, to include Municipal Debt Securities as eligible collateral for repo and reverse repo transactions. These apply to repos conducted on recognized stock exchanges, electronic trading platforms, and over-the-counter markets, while excluding Liquidity Adjustment Facility and Marginal Standing Facility transactions. Notably, government securities, corporate bonds, commercial papers, certificates of deposit, debt ETFs, and now municipal debt securities can serve as collateral. <\/p>\n\n\n\n (Link: RBI Notification 142\/2025 Dated 11\/11\/2025)<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n SC, Issuing Form 15CB by CA not abetment of Money Laundering:<\/strong> Case of K Murli Krishna vs Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate, SC Judgement Dated 10th<\/sup> November 2025. <\/em>The apex court endorsed <\/strong>that a CA acting bona fide within the scope of Form 15CB certification cannot be held criminally liable under PMLA unless clear evidence of<\/strong> mens rea<\/em> (knowing assistance in laundering) is shown<\/strong>.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n (Link: SC Judgement Dated 10\/11\/2025)<\/em><\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n SC, Misappropriation of Public Funds Justifies Removal from Service:<\/strong> Case of Union of India vs Indraj, SC Judgement Dated 13th<\/sup> November 2025.<\/em>The apex court upheld the removal of defendant, for misappropriating public funds. It ruled that his admission of spending the money, even after depositing it back, constituted misconduct and that his ignorance of postal rules was an unacceptable defence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (Link: SC Judgement Dated 13\/11\/2025)<\/em><\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n SC, Counter Claim against Co-Defendant not maintainable:<\/strong> Case of Sanjay Tiwari vs Yugal Kishore Prasad Sao, SC Judgement Dated 12th<\/sup> November 2025.<\/em>The apex court held that a counterclaim cannot be directed against a co-defendant in a suit. The court emphasized that under Order VIII Rule 6A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908<\/strong>,<\/strong> such claims are maintainable only against the plaintiff. The decision highlights judicial consistency in limiting counterclaims to disputes directly arising between the plaintiff and defendant, preventing procedural misuse in multi-party property disputes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (Link: SC Judgement Dated 12\/11\/2025)<\/em><\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n SC, Eviction for Wilful Default in Fair Rent case Upheld:<\/strong> Case of K Subramaniam vs Krishna Mills Pvt Ltd, SC Judgement Dated 11th<\/sup> November 2025. <\/em>The apex court upheld the eviction of the tenant’s heirs for “wilful default” in paying rent, ruling that the mere pendency of an appeal does not suspend the liability to pay rent when no stay order is in place. It emphasized that a tenant’s failure to pay court determined fair rent for an extended period, without a stay, constitutes deliberate non-payment. <\/p>\n\n\n\n (Link: SC Judgement Dated 11\/11\/2025)<\/em><\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n SC, No Specific Performance without Challenging Termination, Bona Fide Buyers Protected:<\/strong> Case of KS Manjunath vs Moorasavirappa @ Muttanna Chennappa Batil, SC Judgement Dated 10th<\/sup> November 2025. <\/em>The apex court held that the suit for specific performance filed by the original vendees was not maintainable, as they failed to seek a declaration that the termination of the agreement was invalid. It emphasised that once a contract is terminated rightly or wrongly the party seeking enforcement must challenge the termination first.The court, allowed the appeals filed by the subsequent purchasers and restored the core finding of the Trial Court regarding maintainability and legal validity of the termination.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (Link: SC Judgement Dated 10\/11\/2025)<\/em><\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n SC, Arbitrator cannot rewrite Catering Contract, sets aside Arbitral Award:<\/strong> Case of Indian Railways Catering Tourism Corporation Ltd vs Brandavan Food Products, SC Judgement Dated 7th<\/sup> November 2025. <\/em>The apex court set aside an arbitral award against IRCTC, ruling that an arbitrator cannot rewrite a contract based on equity. The court found the award was “patently illegal” because it awarded reimbursement for a second regular meal at a higher rate, contrary to the contractual terms and the binding government policy on catering rates. <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n