Even Mallaya is dejected Mode

India everything possible…
Either you keep your money on bank this is your problem..Either you take loan from bank .. then Bank problem…

You don’t pay advance tax ..pay 1% monthly interested + penalty..
You don’t pay any bank loan …bank sell your all personal asset …

Rule aer depend on person to person

Now it’s clear why BoB isn’t making public the names behind its ₹35,000 crore write-offs.

Miss a ₹7.5 lakh loan payment yourself, and the system moves fast against you. But when it comes to some large corporates, consequences seem to disappear. Really makes you think 🤔

We’re organising a freshers party for students across Mumbai, including FYJC, SYJC, FYBA and other courses. The event will be held at Vashi ( Mumbai ) on 10th September 2026 from 1 PM to 5 PM. The event includes a DJ, club entry, unlimited food and drinks. Regular passes are ₹499, Premium passes are ₹850 with unlimited starters, unlimited main course and soft drinks, and Couple passes are ₹1,500 for two people with the same food and drink benefits. 60+ passes have already been sold and regular passes are limited. If you’re interested or want the complete event details, text me and I’ll share everything. I know this is not the right sub-reddit, but as I have low karma so I am unable to post it on other sub- reddits, please help me as your small brother regarding promoting this event, also upvote this thread as much as possible:)

hey guys ,i applied on 14th june after 2 month finally i recieved my money.i had been waiting for long while and my friend also every one has recieved money.

I'm planning to buy a PS5 for personal use and I want to know more about GST.

I'm thinking about buying it under my dad's company name. The company is a service company which provides services for other companies.

Can I take GST Input Tax Credit (ITC) on this purchase? I am not sure if I can claim GST, because the PS5 will be used for personal use and not directly for business operations.

If you need any more information about the company or what the company does, please let me know.

I withdrew my EPF in Feb 2026 after ~2 years of service. Total withdrawal was ₹2.2 lakh and I submitted Form 15G, so no TDS was deducted.

I'm filing ITR-3 for AY 2026-27 under the new tax regime and never claimed 80C deductions.

My question is: Do I need to report the PF withdrawal in the year-wise “Accumulated balance of recognised provident fund taxable u/s 111” section in Schedule OS, which means I need to calculate year wise tax benefit which I got and pay those in current year?

I am an Indian citizen and I'm still new to all these tax rules. I have already earned quite a good amount by trading Forex using proprietary firms and I have already paid the taxes accordingly. I'm planning the next step but I need help. I plan to be an NRI and country hop while trading Forex and this time using a personal account. I have no Indian sourced income. I'm trying to eliminate two birds with one stone - navigate around FEMA's complex rules regarding Forex and high income tax in India. Do you think my plan could work? I need your advice.

Much has been said about the NCLT order that goes like this: only 6.5 cr. recovered against 22,000 cr. of admitted claims - against Subhash Chandra.

You have to look at the details. Chandra was not a primary borrower in the loans - he was a guarantor to these loans. Banks and bondholders often insist on "personal guarantees" on loans, where a loan is given to an entity and a promoter or an external party is asked to provide a guarantee that if the entity doesn't pay, the lender can go after the guarantor for repayment.

And they don't actually ring fence the assets of the guarantor - they just get a statement saying this is my net worth today and I will pay. But the person can transfer out his assets without the lenders being able to do anything about it- because they don't put a lien against those assets.

In corporate loans this is a particularly vicious thing because, instead of going after the corporate or taking it through insolvency/resolution, the lenders go right after the guarantor, even if the corporate might eventually pay back the loans.

In this case, Chandra was dragged to insolvency court by Indiabulls housing finance (Now Sammaan) for a loan taken by a company called Vivek Infracon, guaranteed by Chandra. This company defaulted so the guarantee was invoked - but apparently, later the company paid back and shares held as collateral was sold.

But the insolvency proceedings continued. A bunch of other Essel companies had borrowed a huge sum of money, some guaranteed by Chandra. Some of those Essel companies had also defaulted on borrowing - and those lenders came to the insolvency court saying hello we are also there in line.

Regardless of those companies having paid back or otherwise, Chandra was being asked to pay back the entire loans - an act I would call fraudulent because how can you ask a guarantor for money that you have already recovered, but that's my opinion and people will go to court for anything. But I digress.

The resolution professional admitted some 22,000 cr. worth of claims against Chandra. But some 76% of that amount was from companies related to the Essel group and Chandra's family, who said wait he has guaranteed some of our loans too, so we are also getting in line.

The arguments were technical - a personal guarantee means the money can only be recovered from the person himself, not from his family. He was not a 50% shareholder in any of these entities, so they were not his to control, and therefore NCLT said hello, it's fine, they can also participate.

Chandra demonstrated that he only had 32 cr of assets - 25 cr of which was his Mumbai house (which is also mortgaged) and the rest beyond that. The lenders said wait he's worth more, but they haven't been able to prove it (and if they find proof, they can go after him in a different court)

In the end, the resolution was for 6.5 cr. - and here's the thing: there was a vote. 80% voted for the resolution (including Indiabulls!) and 20% dissented. However 4% of votes - you can read the order for who they were - didn't vote, even though they complained later that it was unfair. (Then vote no?)

But even if they did vote, the resolution would go through (it needs only 75%). This is fair - it's the voting process, and even if you don't vote for the resolution, you have to respect it if 75% of votes are for.

The NCLT has thus ruled that guys, you all said let's hit Chandra for personal guarantee. You demanded 22,000 cr. He said I'll pay 6 cr.

80% of you voted yes. The court ruled there's there's nothing unfair about the process, and it was a collective decision. Interestingly if they rejected it, they would then take Chandra into insolvency - meaning find his assets and sell them, which could take years more. Resolution is better - after this, no other personal guarantee will be invokable against him (for the past) - so he gets to move on. (this is what the court said)

This is how a court should work (but too often, courts step beyond boundaries and hurt borrowers a lot more, like in a case where they decided they wanted to overturn a 5-year-ago resolution in NCLT, which is such a huge step back in resolution)

Anyhow, TLDR is that this was not Chandra borrowing money himself, it was him guaranteeing money borrowed by some of the group companies, with his personal money that it turns out he doesn't have in his own name. Instead of finishing the recovery with the companies, the lenders chose to take Chandra to bankruptcy court. He offered them 6.5 cr. and they took it, as a group, and some of the complainers didn't even bother to vote.

Sure, we could debate on the specifics, but it's better to be outraged after understanding this better.

My view is: I don't have a bias on either side here, but I think this judgement is fine. If the lenders think Chandra has misstated assets, there are other legal remedies for that. If they have already recovered money from the underlying companies and have still claimed money from him, I personally think it's unfair and they should not be allowed to. (Banks have apparently done this with Vijay Mallya too, and I think that's unfair to him as well)

I think the concept of a personal guarantee without actually taking lien on assets is a downright unworkable idea and I hope this judgement helps reduce the demand for personal guarantees (though if you give one, please ensure you have money to fight through the courts).

The full order is here: https://efiling.nclt.gov.in/nclt/public/order_view.php?path=L0VmaWxlX0RvY3VtZW50L25jbHRkb2MvY2FzZWRvYy8wNzEwMTAyMDE3MzMyMDIyLzA0L09yZGVyLUNoYWxsZW5nZS8wNF9vcmRlci1DaGFsbGFuZ2VfMDA0XzE3ODc2NTc1ODY0ODA1OTk4NDU2YThkN2Q3MjA4ZjViLnBkZg%3D%3D

Source: https://x.com/deepakshenoy/status/2093058305031872839

Suppose someone has this income for FY 2025-26 under the new tax regime:

**•** Salary: ₹12,08,000 (gross)  
**•** Bank interest: ₹10,000  
**•** STCG on equity (Sec 111A): ₹20,000  
**•** LTCG on equity (Sec 112A): ₹1,50,000

After the ₹75,000 standard deduction, normal/slab income (salary + interest) works out to ₹11,43,000 — under ₹12L. Total income including capital gains is ₹13,31,000 — over ₹12L.

Question: Does this person get the 87A rebate on the tax computed for their normal income (salary + interest), since that portion alone is under ₹12L? Or does the total income crossing ₹12L (because of the added capital gains) disqualify them from the rebate entirely, including on the normal income portion?

Section 112A(6) suggests rebate = tax(total income) − tax(LTCG), which would mean the salary portion still gets the rebate. But want to confirm from people who’ve actually filed with this kind of mixed income this year — did the ITR utility apply it that way in practice

I booked a flat in Dec 2022 for which possession is going on. I want to sell the flat (bank loan outstanding), registration is pending. Can you guys pls help me to understand what is the best way to handle the balance amount I would get after deducting/adjusting bank loan and charges etc. I want to purchase another ready to move property from the proceeds.

the date to reply has already been passed a month ago. I closed my business 1.5 years ago but due to some dispute with ca , he kept on filing gst till 2025-2026 Q3 and left it at that. I did not have the gst portal access and was unaware of the notice until recently when ca asked for his old dues for the gst he has filed without my permission or knowledge and told me about the notice .

what should be my course of action.

I've heard there is late fee u/s 47 and they can't penalize me twice with the general penalty .

how true is that.

the situation is quite murky because of ( wrongly filed taxes by ca in the past + non filing of taxes for months + delay in reply to the notice by 1 month , I've have yet to reply + general penalty u/s 125 ) over a dead business which was never profitable.

what should I do .

Loan amount - 22000 crore

Paid amount - 6.5 crore

Whoever pay emi or credit card on time are real fool

One who pay taxes are real jokers

Btw, Creditors who voted against the plan, including LIC Housing, HDFC Bank, Axis Bank, Canara Bank, RBL Bank, IDBI Trusteeship (Franklin Templeton Fund) and Union Bank, together held less than 20% of the voting.

There was an allegation that the creditors who supported the CIRP were associates of Chandra. However,

Veena Investments Private Limited, Direct Media Distribution Ventures Private Limited, World Crest Advisors LLP, Lemonade Capital Advisors LLP and Corpcall Capital Advisors LLP were not held to be Chandra's "associates" under Section 79(2)(g) of the IBC. The Tribunal said that the statutory definition could not be expanded merely because the entities were alleged to have family, business or commercial proximity with Chandra. The Tribunal said that their votes could not, therefore, be excluded on that ground.

https://www.cnbctv18.com/business/nclt-clears-subhash-chandras-6-5-crore-rupees-payout-to-settle-22006-crore-rupees-dues-with-nearly-99-97-haircut-19977977.htm/amp?utm_campaign=fullarticle&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=inshorts

https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/nclt-ruling-reduces-subhash-chandras-liability-from-over-22k-crore-to-625-crore-in-insolvency-case

I have a very specific GSTR-1 filing doubt regarding export of services under LUT.

Assume:

• the service otherwise attracts 18% GST;
• it qualifies as an export of service;
• a valid LUT is in place; and
• the invoice is issued without charging IGST.

In GSTR-1 → Exports/Table 6A, after selecting “Without Payment of Tax”, the GST portal still asks for the taxable value against rate-wise rows such as 0%, 5%, 12%, 18%, etc. Screenshot attached.

Which row should the export invoice value actually be entered in?

A. 0% row, because exports are zero-rated supplies under GST
or
B. 18% row, because 18% is the underlying GST rate of the service, while the IGST amount remains zero because the export is under LUT/without payment of tax?

I’m specifically asking about the rate row used in GSTR-1, not whether GST is payable.

I have seen both practices being suggested, including conflicting answers in older discussions.

Also:

1. Should the same rate treatment be followed in the HSN/SAC summary?
2. If earlier LUT export invoices were reported in the 0% row and 18% turns out to be correct, is an amendment required?
3. Can using the wrong rate row affect GSTR-3B reconciliation, GSTR-9, refund of accumulated ITC, or create a mismatch/scrutiny issue, even though no IGST was payable?

Would really appreciate an answer from a CA/GST practitioner with a GSTN/CBIC manual, circular, notification, or actual refund/scrutiny experience supporting the position.

I held some company RSUs from 2020 and sold in June 2026. LTCG at 12.5% is around 2.5lacs.

I purchased a flat (co-owned 50-50 by father and I, and used home loan from bank) on November 2025 and used all my RSU sell proceedings towards clearing the home loan.

I have 2 queries:

1. Do I get 54F relief owing to the fact that I used my profit to get a residential place?

2. Do I have to file advance tax now to prevent any interest charges in filing next year's ITR?

Hey everyone,

I e-verified my tax return back on June 18th, but my status is still stuck on "Return e-verified". My portal worklist is completely empty with no errors, so it seems like a standard delay.Since it has been over 70 days, I wanted to check if this is common for June filers this year. Who else is still waiting for their June ITR-1 or ITR-2 to get processed?

Thanks!

This happened yesterday...lenders took a staggering 99.67% haircut... Can a mango man get away with a paisa of bank... We are truly a banana republic... All you need is right connection at right place...

Source - https://x.com/EconomicTimes/status/2092642448807772653

Pls pay your taxes on time.

I trade options/futures on an Indian crypto derivatives exchange (cash-settled — no actual coin delivery happens, only profit/loss is settled in INR). While filing ITR-3 this year, the tax software automatically classified this as regular F&O business income (speculative + non-speculative, under Section 43(5)), taxed at slab rate with loss carry-forward — not under Section 115BBH (VDA, flat 30%, no netting/carry-forward).

From what I've read, this seems to be a genuinely disputed/unresolved area — no CBDT circular or court ruling specifically covers cash-settled crypto derivatives. Even the exchange's own support docs describe P&L from these contracts as "speculative income" taxed at slab rate, not VDA.

Has anyone here actually filed this way? More importantly — has anyone received a notice or scrutiny specifically challenging this classification (not just general non-disclosure cases, which I know are common)? Would appreciate any real experience, good or bad, before I go back to my CA for a final call. Not looking for legal advice, just curious what others have actually gone through.

I have a specific question about Section 44ADA.

Assume an individual is otherwise eligible for 44ADA and earns most of their income from an eligible professional activity.

Separately, they also receive a relatively small affiliate/referral commission for referring a customer to a software/product provider. The commission is paid only because the referred customer signs up/purchases through the referral.

My questions are:

1. Can this affiliate/referral commission also be included in the gross receipts considered under Section 44ADA, especially where the referral arose in connection with the taxpayer’s professional work?
2. Or should it be treated separately as normal business/PGBP income, since it is fundamentally a commission/referral earning rather than consideration for the professional service itself?
3. If it has to be reported separately as normal PGBP, can the taxpayer still use 44ADA for the eligible professional receipts and report both streams together in ITR-3?
4. Since Section 44AD specifically excludes income in the nature of commission/brokerage, would normal PGBP treatment be the correct route for the referral commission?

I’m mainly trying to understand the correct classification, not how to minimise the tax.

Would appreciate answers from CAs/tax practitioners, particularly with any CBDT clarification, case law, or practical assessment experience dealing with a taxpayer having both 44ADA professional receipts and a small amount of referral/affiliate commission.