Cross-border trade plays a vital role in boosting a country’s economic growth. With accelerated globalization, we have observed India emerging as one of the major players in the global supply chain. In the past decade, there has been a substantial rise in cross-border transactions; both in terms of volume and value and this rise has revealed various statutory hurdles in the extant applicable laws governing cross-border trade.
The article discusses the recent circular which is issued by International Finance Services Centres Authority (‘IFSCA’) for imposing an obligation on Authorised FMEs, registered FMEs (Non-Retail) and Registered FMEs (Retail) to maintain a website or a webpage dedicated to their fund management activities in the IFSC.
The article discusses the conceptual foundations of the force of attraction rule, traces its judicial evolution in India, and evaluates the relevance of the doctrine in an era increasingly shaped by source-based taxation and digital nexus rules.
The notification of the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 2026 (‘2026 Scheme’) with effect from 1 July 2026, was anticipated to settle and provide clarity on the regulatory framework governing international workers under the Code on Social Security, 2020. However, it has done the opposite in one respect. The 2026 Scheme retains a dedicated framework for international workers and carries forward the substance of the erstwhile Paragraph 83 of the EPF Scheme, 1952 (‘1952 Scheme’) and Paragraph 43A of the EPS, 1995.
GST as a law has been very dynamic with amendments happening day in and day out as the legislature and the subjects learn from implementing the law to the practical aspects of the business. One of the recent amendments to the law is the amendment to sub-section (4) to Section 16 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 (‘CGST Act’) which was made effective from 1 January 2021.
The Intellectual Property Appellate Board (‘IPAB’) in an order dated 29 September 2020 allowed the appeal filed by Novartis AG (‘Appellant’) challenging the revocation of Indian Patent No. 276026 (IN’026) by the Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs, New Delhi (‘Respondent No. 2’) following post-grant opposition proceedings initiated by Natco Pharma Limited (‘Respondent No. 3’), and set aside the revocation order (‘impugned order’) as being ‘devoid of merit’.
It is a settled principle statutorily that the income tax paid by a taxpayer on its income is not allowed as a deductible expenditure under the provisions of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’). The term ‘income-tax’ has not been defined under the provisions of the Act, however, the term ‘tax’ has been defined to mean income-tax chargeable under the provisions of the Act. Section 4 of the Act creates a charge of tax on the total income of the previous year of a person.
Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’) provides for an appeal against orders passed under Sections 9, 34, 16 and 17 of the Act. The Act does not provide any specific limitation for filing such appeals, however, Section 43 of the Act provides that the Limitation Act, 1963 (‘Limitation Act’) shall apply to arbitrations as it applies to proceedings in Court.
Though the primary objective of Corporate Social Responsibility (‘CSR’) was not slated to be to bridge resource gap for the Government, the second wave of the pandemic Covid-19 has once again brought back into light the participation of Corporate India in supplementing the efforts of the Government.
On 7 May 2021, the Directorate General of Trade Remedies (‘DGTR’) concluded the anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of ‘Plain Medium Density Fibre Board having thickness 6mm and above’ (‘subject goods’) produced by Kim Tin MDF Joint Stock Company, Vietnam (‘Kim Tin’) by terminating the investigation. Though the termination of this investigation is not unusual, the reasons for the termination of the investigation are interesting.
Businesses constantly seek to innovate to obtain an edge over their competition and sometimes this leads to particularly noteworthy innovations that become disruptive forces within the market segment. This allows the innovator to determine their own price for their products and operate independent of the market forces of supply and demand
Implementation of e-way bill system under the Goods and Services Tax regime has been an excruciating exercise for the Government as well as the taxpayers. While Government was initially grappling for timely enforcement of e-way bill system due to inherent constraints in the portal, the taxpayers were finding it difficult to cope up with the frequent amendments in the e-way bill related rules.
The Covid-19 pandemic has exposed catastrophic outcomes. The limited experience of handling such a crisis in India has already revealed its overbearing effect on business and industry, while the tax landscape has also faced significant transformation. In an interconnected world, some of the issues that have arisen in the context of cross-border taxation have created concern, with the potential of leading to far-reaching implications. Some of these issues are considered in detail in this article.
Taxation upon exit of a partner from a partnership firm has been a contentious issue since long. Till Financial Year 1987-88, distribution of capital assets on dissolution of partnership firm was specifically excluded from capital gain taxation . Resultantly, as a tax planning exercise, taxpayers used to convert partnership assets into individual assets either upon retirement or dissolution, contending that no capital gains tax was payable in relation to the same
In the recent past, the engagement of contract labour has witnessed a spike across various sectors, both in the manufacturing as well as service sectors. Presently, the framework of the contract labour is regulated by Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (‘CLRA Act’). This may continue for one more year, as implementation of new Labour Codes may get delayed due to the massive second wave of Covid-19 across the country.
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.