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.
In recent times, the most preferred mechanism adopted by the land owners to transfer their immovable property has been under a Joint Development Agreement (‘JDA’). This mode is usually preferred by those land owners who want to develop their lands but do not have the requisite expertise to carry out the same. Therefore, they enter into a JDA with a developer for developing and marketing the land parcel to the buyers for a mutual benefit.
After the 45th meeting of GST Council, when Press Release stated that in order to remove ambiguity and legal disputes, Circular will be issued providing clarification(s) on scope of ‘intermediary services’, while some cheered with hope, others did not want to raise their expectations.
The article elaborately discusses a recent decision of the Delhi High Court wherein the Court clarified that the mere coverage in every case does not result in obviousness. It also confirmed that the patent applications related to selection inventions may be granted, provided they satisfy three conditions. The High Court also held that coverage and disclosure are distinct concepts.
Applications for initiating anti-dumping and countervailing duty investigations are usually filed by or on behalf of the ‘domestic industry’. Therefore, one of the foremost requirements in any Anti-Dumping (‘AD’) or Countervailing Duty (‘CVD’) investigation is to identify the scope of the ‘domestic industry’.
It is no surprise that within a short span of time e-commerce has had a tremendous impact on consumers all over the world. Such dramatic change in the current environment for both businesses and consumers has also posed new challenges, which made it imperative to bring a codified legislation to cater to the interests of the consumers of the e-commerce space.
With the advent of The Companies Act, 2013 (‘Companies Act’), the corporates were casted with the mandatory Corporate Social Responsibility (‘CSR’) obligation. Section 135 of the Companies Act provides that every company meeting a stipulated threshold shall spend at least 2% of the average net profits earned during the three immediately preceding financial years, towards CSR activities.
The retirement of partners from the partnership firms is a universal phenomenon. Further, it is not an aberrant practice for partnership firms to distribute assets to its partners at the time of retirement. However, with issues cropping up in the GST law, such distribution of assets to the retiring partners is an area of concern.
The Competition Commission of India (“CCI”) in its order dated 23.08.2021 penalized Maruti Suzuki India Limited (“Maruti”) with a fine of INR 200 crore for its Discount Control Policy (“DCP”). The DCP restricted the amount of discount a Maruti dealer could offer to its customers. Maruti also required the dealers to seek prior approval if they wanted to offer discounts (cash and non-cash) beyond the prescribed limits.
In the case of Ferid Allani v. Union of India and Ors., the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (‘IPAB’) set aside the refusal order of the Indian Patent Office (‘IPO’) and allowed the appellant’s patent application.
The scope and ambit of ‘goods’ has always been a contentious issue from a taxation perspective. Tax policies in India have witnessed an evolution of diverse taxes levied on the acts of production, manufacture, sale, lease and transfer of ‘goods’. Thus, situations where one has had to contend with the question of whether an article qualifies as ‘goods’ has been rather frequent.
Banks regulator, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), on 27 August 2021, issued the Master Directions on Prepaid Payment Instruments (‘MD PPI’) to introduce significant changes to the existing legal regime pertaining to the prepaid instruments (PPI) viz., under the Master Directions on Issuance and Operation of Prepaid Payment Instruments (‘2017 MD’).
In January 2012, the Supreme Court of India gave relief to foreign investors through its landmark decision in Vodafone International Holdings BV v. Union of India (‘Vodafone case’). However, in a matter of months, the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court was rendered infructuous by way of amendments to the Income-tax Act (‘IT Act’), which were given retrospective effect from 1962.
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.
