Bijoy Das
B.com(H) from Heramba chandra college & M.com(Finance) Calcutta University, CA inter
Contact Info
I am Bijoy Das, a commerce postgraduate from Kolkata with a strong academic foundation in finance and accounting. I hold a B.Com (Honours) from Heramba Chandra College and an M.Com (Finance) from Calcutta University (Main Campus). Currently, I am pursuing the CA Intermediate level under the ICAI, deepening my understanding of taxation, auditing, and financial management.
I am passionate about the ever-evolving world of taxation and finance, and I believe that platforms like TaxGuru play a vital role in keeping professionals and students updated with practical, real-world knowledge. I joined TaxGuru to both upgrade my own knowledge and contribute meaningfully to a community of learners and practitioners.
No issues posted by the user yet!
No replies have been made yet!
Showing 1 to 13 of 13 Results
Rule 86A credit blocking requires written reasons, independent satisfaction, proportionality, authorised action, and strict compliance with the one-year limit.
Rule 86A credit blocking is described as an exceptional interim power requiring action by a duly authorised officer, independent application of mind, and written reasons to believe based on material connected to a specified statutory ground. A valid restriction should identify the relevant material and ground in the order itself, be limited to the credit specifically believed to be ineligible or fraudulent, and cease after the one-year outer limit. Bulk blocking based solely on supplier intelligence reports is criticised where recipient-specific transactions and eligibility have not been independently examined. (AI Summary)
Goods and Services Tax - GST
Static treaty interpretation and make-available tests shape the tax treatment of cross-border telecom service payments.
Cross-border telecommunication payments are analysed under the royalty, FTS, and business profits framework in light of a retrospective domestic amendment expanding the meaning of "process" in section 9(1)(vi). The article contrasts static and ambulatory treaty interpretation under article 3(2), noting that domestic amendments cannot unilaterally override pre-existing DTAA terms. It explains that, on the facts discussed, bandwidth and voice termination receipts fall outside royalty and FTS characterisation and are treated as business profits where no permanent establishment exists. (AI Summary)
Income Tax
Mutual Agreement Procedure reform remains limited as Section 533 leaves India's MAP backlog and negotiation delays largely untouched.
Mutual Agreement Procedure under the Income-tax Act, 2025 remains the treaty mechanism for resolving taxation not in accordance with a double taxation avoidance agreement, but Section 533 largely reproduces the earlier framework without curing India's prolonged MAP backlog. Rule 121 and Form 55 improve the application stage through more structured disclosures, yet they do not address the negotiation bottleneck, under-resourced administration, lack of mandatory arbitration, parallel domestic appeal proceedings, or limited transparency. The article proposes targeted reforms including a 24-month resolution timeline, MAP-appeal coordination, specialist resourcing, and public statistics. (AI Summary)
Income Tax
DTAA notification continuity under the new tax law raises treaty enforceability questions and transitional compliance risk.
The transitional issue is whether DTAA notifications issued under Section 90(1) of the repealed Income-tax Act, 1961 continue as notifications under Section 4(1) of the Income-tax Act, 2025. The article treats the notification as the domestic legal conduit for treaty enforceability, notes the savings clause and General Clauses Act continuity argument, and concludes that existing notifications are best read as carried forward under the new Act, though residual litigation risk remains absent CBDT clarification. (AI Summary)
Income Tax
No-consideration corporate guarantees are treated as non-taxable supply, while valuation rule 28(2) survives for taxable cases.
Corporate guarantees issued by a holding company to banks or financial institutions on behalf of a subsidiary or related entity, where no fee, commission, or other consideration is charged, are discussed as not constituting a supply under Section 7 of the CGST Act. The Bombay High Court's reasoning is presented as applying the principle that consideration remains the gateway to taxability, and that a shareholder or parent-company guarantee is not furnished in the course or furtherance of business in the relevant sense. The article also notes that the Court treated the no-consideration principle as continuing to operate in GST. (AI Summary)
Goods and Services Tax - GST
Independent agreement test narrows GST on dispute settlements, excluding compensatory payments, arbitral awards, and decree satisfaction from taxable supply.
Entry 5(e) of Schedule II to the CGST Act is said to apply only where there is an independent agreement with separate consideration for refraining from an act, tolerating a situation, or doing an act. The article explains that compensatory payments arising from breach, liquidated damages, arbitral awards, and court decree settlements are not standalone service arrangements and should not be treated as taxable supplies merely because they are accompanied by forbearance or withdrawal of proceedings. (AI Summary)
Goods and Services Tax - GST
Principal Purpose Test enforcement under the MLI depends on specific treaty notification before Indian domestic application.
The article argues that MLI modifications, including the Principal Purpose Test, require a specific section 90(1) notification before they can operate in India. It relies on Nestle SA to state that treaty benefits and treaty modifications do not become enforceable merely through ratification, and it treats recent ITAT rulings as applying that principle to aircraft-leasing disputes and other MLI provisions. It also says a CBDT circular cannot cure the notification gap and proposes consolidated notifications with synthesised treaty texts. (AI Summary)
Income Tax
Equalisation Levy withdrawal reshapes transition taxation, straddle payments, and section 10(50) sunset for non-residents.
Withdrawal of the Equalisation Levy from 1 April 2025 is not retrospective, so pre-transition receipts remain subject to the earlier levy regime, including pending assessments, appeals, refund claims, and residual compliance obligations. The sunset of section 10(50) from Assessment Year 2026-27 ends the income-tax exemption for equalisation-levy-taxed receipts, requiring post-transition receipts to be examined under section 9, Significant Economic Presence analysis, and the applicable treaty provisions. Straddle transactions are governed by the date-of-consideration test, and overlapping foreign Digital Services Tax may create an unresolved foreign tax credit gap. (AI Summary)
Income Tax
Presumptive taxation for non-resident electronics service providers narrows PE disputes while overriding royalty and technical service regimes.
Section 44BBD inserts a presumptive taxation regime for non-residents providing services or technology to residents establishing or operating electronics manufacturing facilities in India under a notified scheme. Twenty-five per cent of the aggregate specified amounts is deemed to be business profits chargeable under the head Profits and gains of business or profession. The proviso to Section 44BBD(2) expressly excludes the application of Sections 44DA and 115A to amounts covered by the section, while treaty analysis remains relevant because the deeming fiction applies to profits and not to a Permanent Establishment. (AI Summary)
Income Tax
Charge for non-payment of duty reform softens customs stigma, but separate declaration barriers still remain under licensing regimes.
Clause 88 of the Finance Bill 2026 proposes to amend Section 28(6) of the Customs Act 1962 so that the amount paid under Section 28(5) on voluntary compliance is deemed to be a charge for non-payment of duty rather than a punitive penalty. The amendment keeps the existing procedure, quantum, and timelines intact, but it does not by itself resolve the separate "no prior penalty" declaration requirements under the AEO Regulations 2018, MOOWR Regulations 2019, or the Foreign Trade Policy 2023. The article treats the reform as partial relief only. (AI Summary)
Customs - Import - Export - SEZ
Tarrification of customs duty rates shifts disputes from exemption eligibility to tariff classification for imports after 1 May 2026.
The Finance Bill 2026 proposes to tarrify approximately 54 Customs Tariff Headings by incorporating the effective basic customs duty rates directly into the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act 1975 from 1 May 2026. The exercise is rate-neutral but displaces exemption notifications and shifts future disputes from exemption eligibility to Tariff Heading classification. Pre-1 May 2026 imports continue under the earlier regime, including pending assessments, refund claims, and provisional assessments, while Social Welfare Surcharge may require verification after the consequential amendments. (AI Summary)
Customs - Import - Export - SEZ
Electronic Credit Ledger pre-deposit: Yasho Industries leaves GSTAT appeal payment and re-credit issues unresolved.
Whether the Yasho Industries principle permitting pre-deposit from the Electronic Credit Ledger for first appeals under section 107(6) extends to GSTAT appeals under section 112(8) remains unresolved. The article notes that both provisions use similar language requiring payment of a percentage of disputed tax without specifying the payment mode, supporting an argument for allowing ECL debits at the Tribunal stage. It also records the administrative position requiring cash-based payment through Bharatkosh, creating practical filing risk for appellants relying on ECL. (AI Summary)
Goods and Services Tax - GST
IMS deemed acceptance and hard-locked GSTR-3B raise unresolved GST issues on ITC eligibility, gap-period protection, and interest exposure.
IMS deemed acceptance routes invoices into GSTR-2B and GSTR-3B as eligible ITC, but the article says this does not conclusively satisfy the full ITC test under Section 16(2). It identifies three unresolved issues: whether deemed acceptance protects only the invoice-reflection condition or also affects receipt and supplier-payment requirements; whether ITC claimed during the 12-month period before the amended Section 38 framework came into force is protected; and whether Section 50 interest can fairly run from the date of ITC availment when a hard-locked GSTR-3B cannot be corrected. (AI Summary)
Goods and Services Tax - GST
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
01 Jun 2026 
1 Reply 
