The Ministry of Finance (Department of Economic Affairs) on 12 June 2026, notified the Foreign Exchange Management (Non-Debt Instruments) (Third Amendment) Rules, 2026 (‘Amendment Rules’), amending the Foreign Exchange Management (Non-Debt Instruments) Rules, 2019 (‘NDI Rules’). The Amendment Rules constitute the third amendment in the FEMA liberalisation cycle for the year 2026, following the first and second amendments, which respectively relaxed restrictions on investments from countries sharing a land border with India and liberalised foreign investment in the insurance sector opening the sector up till 100% under automatic route. The third amendment is yet another attempt to widen the gate for the Indian economy. For years, access to India's listed securities market was reserved specially for a defined class amongst which are foreign portfolio investors (FPIs) and non-resident Indians (NRIs) and overseas citizens of India (OCIs), this time the liberalisation is into the Indian capital markets.
The 2026 Steel import Regulation of the European Union (EU) (‘2026 Regulation’),[1] which came into force on 1 July 2026, is not simply a continuation of earlier Steel Safeguard measures[2] applicable since 2018, but it indicates a decisive shift in the EU’s approach to regulate its steel imports in the coming years. With lowering of tariff-rate quotas (TRQs), higher out-of-quota duties and proposal for stricter origin requirements, the 2026 Regulation goes beyond the WTO’s temporary safeguard regime to a more permanent industrial policy governing steel imports into the EU. In particular, the 2026 Regulation reduces the EU's tariff-free steel quota by ~47%, doubles the out-of-quota duty from 25% to 50%, and introduces a new ‘melt and pour’ traceability requirement.
Various State Benches of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘GSTAT’) have recently become operational, and questions relating to jurisdiction between the Principal Bench and the State Benches have begun to arise in practice. While Section 109 of the CGST Act specifies certain categories of cases to be dealt with exclusively by the Principal Bench, early orders of the Principal Bench indicate that jurisdictional issues are not always straightforward.
The persons who were non-residents in FY 2015-16 cannot be said to be at fault and made subject to the draconian deeming fiction provided in Section 72(c) of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015. The said legal position will also apply in the case of residents but not ordinarily residents in FY 2015-16.
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India has recently come up with a proposal for the parties involved in an operational creditor application to explore mediation under the provisions of the Mediation Act, 2023. The authors note that the proposal will reduce the burden on the Adjudicating Authority, since the non-settlement report would capture any admission or dispute of debts as claimed by the operational creditor.
With a month around a corner to implement ISD, it is imperative for the companies to understand the basics of ISD, evaluate the applicability of ISD for common input services, supplies attracting reverse charge, distribution in relation to SEZ and implement the mechanism for smooth transition. This article focuses on some practical aspects related to ISD implementation.
The article discuss the amendment, the potential issues needing clarification and also the global practices being followed for transfer pricing compliance and assessments.
The article discusses the Industry Standards Note on Regulation 30 of SEBI LODR, which clarifies the certain ambiguous disclosure requirements under SEBI LODR and seeks to cure the operational challenges and avoid information asymmetry and this will impact on the quarterly reporting requirements and time to time disclosures to be made by listed companies. This Note effectually makes the disclosure requirements ‘qualitative’ rather than ‘quantitative’ under Regulation SEBI LODR.
The article discusses the key takeaways of the Union Budget 2025 in relation to the Government’s ‘Make in India’ initiative. The Government has sought to further strengthen and boost domestic manufacturing in India and promote export and employment in key sectors like textiles, shipment, toys, electronic vehicles and leather.
The article discusses the recent decision of the Delhi High Court in Niraj Silk Mills which has (re)triggered the debate over the significance of ‘consent’ given at the time of assessment of bill of entry or shipping bill, be it regarding rate of duty / valuation / classification. It focuses on the critical aspect of whether an assessee can challenge an assessment even after giving consent / acceptance in writing.
The Single Judge of the Delhi High Court has rejected claims of trademark infringement and refused a plea seeking to restrain Mahindra Last Mile Mobility Ltd. from selling its electric vehicle under the trademark ‘eZEO’. The dispute was over the trademarks ‘EZIO’ and ‘eZEO’ and highlights the importance of the test of passing off, brand identity, first in the market advantage and weight of established reputation.
The article elaborately discusses the Principle of Comity. Citing various decisions and discussing international jurisprudence, it notes that an orderly disorder has crept into various statutes where multiple authorities have concurrent jurisdiction to decide the same issue and such authorities choose to exercise the same simultaneously, leading to conflicting orders. has context menu
The Supreme Court recently held that the complete reduction of capital (resulting in cancellation of shares) amounts to ‘transfer’ in terms of Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the consequent payout would be exigible to tax under the head capital gains. The article attempts to explore the possible fate of the taxpayers to claim capital loss in a scenario where no payout is received pursuant to a reduction in share capital.
The article discusses a recent proposed amendment in Section 18 of the Customs Act that appears promising on ease of business. On deeper analysis, however, it does pose various questions, as the consequences of non-fulfilment of the timelines proposed are not specified.
The article discusses Alternate Investment Funds (AIFs), which are privately pooled investment vehicles which collect funds from investors, whether Indian or foreign, for investing in certain class of securities. It examines their special taxation regime, the issues with the current provisions, the proposed amendments, and the impacts of these amendments after the Finance Bill, 2025.
The rules of the Bar Council of India prohibit law firms from advertising and soliciting work through communication in the public domain. This website is meant solely for the purpose of information and not for the purpose of advertising. Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan does not intend to solicit clients through this website. We do not take responsibility for decisions taken by the reader based solely on the information provided in the website. By clicking on 'ACCEPT', the visitor acknowledges that the information provided in the website (a) does not amount to advertising or solicitation and (b) is meant only for his/her understanding about our activities and who we are.
By continuing to use this site you consent to the use of cookies on your device as described in our Cookie Policy.
