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 article discusses Rule 86A of the CGST Rules, which empowers the department to block ITC ledger in cases involving fake ITC. Observing that greater the power, the more dangerous the abuse; and it is no different in the case of said Rule, the authors deliberate on various case law on number of issues including on ‘borrowed satisfaction’, ‘temporary measure’, ‘negative blocking’, etc.
Ordinarily in the case of a sale, the price received by a seller should be taken as the ‘full value of the consideration’ for calculating capital gains. However, a legal quandary arises in the cases where a portion of the consideration is retained in an escrow account. Taking note of various case law, the article ponders over the questions as to whether such retained amount falls within the purview of ‘full value of the consideration’ and what would be the year of its taxation
Bearing in mind the existing provisions for expedited examinations, the article focuses on key routes available at the Indian Patent Office (‘IPO’) compared with the European Patent Office (‘EPO’) and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (‘USPTO’).
The Biological Diversity (Amendment) Act, 2023, and the Biological Diversity Rules, 2024, which will come into effect after 21 December 2024, provide an orchestration for management of India’s biological resources with due consideration to the interests of stakeholders as well as the local communities.
The article highlights ten distinct conformity assessment schemes, each aimed at facilitating compliance with Indian Standards (IS) across various sectors and analysis their legal scope, and significant updates.
The article discusses a recent decision of the Bombay High Court striking down the amendment to Rule 3(1)(b)(v) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2023. The Rule required intermediaries to remove content relating to Government business flagged by an Fact Checking Unit as fake, false, or misleading.
The article discusses the law and practice surrounding the provisional anti-dumping measures in India. It elaborately analyses the legal provisions, timelines for imposition of provisional anti-dumping duty (‘ADD’), and a few other practical aspects relating to imposition of such duty.
The article in this issue of Direct Tax Amicus discusses the issue of whether an intimation under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 will automatically merge with an assessment order under Section 143(3). Considering various decisions of the ITAT, the authors note that it can be inferred that a strait jacket formula cannot be adopted for applying the Doctrine of Merger.
The article discusses the recent decision of Delhi High Court of Zydus Wellness Products Limited v. Prashant Desai . The court highlights the importance of Social Media Influencers to avoid commenting on topics outside the realm of their expertise.
The article discusses the recent judgement of Lacoste & Anr. v. Crocodile International Pte Ltd. Wherein the Delhi High Court ruled upon a two-decade long conflict between so-called ‘mirror’ logos of a crocodile/ saurian. The judgment also highlights the test of the various principles and procedures, which lie in disputes that are subject to trial.
Indian Standards and Quality Control Orders can have far-fetched implications for businesses manufacturing or importing goods and services in the Indian market. This article explores various provisions vis-à-vis the same and discusses the mandatory nature of QCOs, their applicability on imported goods, and various case law.
The article provides a detailed discussion of a recent Bombay High Court decision in Asset Auto v. UoI, which reviews the discretionary power provided to the Regional Director of the central government in respect of fast-track mergers provided under Section 233 of the Companies Act, 2013. According to the High Court, the Regional Director does not have the power to outrightly reject the scheme.
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.
