India’s Cash Transaction Rules — Reality, Myths, and Strategic Compliance FY 2025–26

 By CA Surekha S Ahuja

Cash is legal only when it’s limited, documented, and traceable — the rules haven’t changed, but AI and SFT make every transaction accountable.

Why Social Media “Halla-Gulla”?

Despite social media frenzy, the laws themselves are not new:

• Key provisions: Sections 269ST, 269SS/269T, 194N, 68, 69, 69A, 115BBE, and SFT reporting predate 2025.

• No legislative changes were introduced in FY 2025–26.

• Hype arises from AI-enabled enforcement, SFT-triggered notices, and high-visibility penalties, making existing rules appear stricter.

Insight: Understanding past, present, and forward-looking compliance strategy is essential to avoid risk.

Legacy Rules & Key Thresholds

Section / Rule	Limit / Trigger	Allowed / Disallowed	Effective Date	Notes
Sections 68 / 69 / 69A / 115BBE	Unexplained cash, unrecorded investments	Cash allowed if source documented; disallowed if unexplained	01-Apr-2017	Penalty up to 84% for unexplained deposits; AI/SFT triggers notices
Section 269ST	Cash receipt ≥ ₹2,00,000/day or transaction	Disallowed beyond limit; allowed if < ₹2L	01-Apr-2018	Applies per person per day / transaction / occasion; penalty equal to cash received
Sections 269SS / 269T	Cash loan / repayment ≥ ₹20,000	Disallowed above limit; allowed below	1984 / 1989	Requires formal agreement, PAN, repayment documentation
Section 194N	Cash withdrawal > ₹20,00,000 if ITR not filed 3 yrs	TDS triggers; allowed if ITR filed	01-Sep-2019	Filing ITR avoids TDS; auditors should verify compliance
SFT Reporting (285BA / Rule 114E)	Savings deposit > ₹10L, property > ₹30L, FDs > ₹10L	Mandatory reporting; non-reporting triggers notice	Progressive, FY 2022–23 onwards	AI matches PAN, triggers automatic notices

Allowed Cash Transactions — Permitted under the Act

Transaction Type	Limit	Conditions	Reference / Notes
Business expenses / supplier payments	≤ ₹10,000/person/day	Maintain invoices; allowed for deduction; above limit, deduction disallowed	Sec 40A(3)
Cash loans / repayments	≤ ₹20,000/transaction	PAN verification, agreement, repayment schedule required	Sec 269SS / 269T
Cash receipts from a person	< ₹2,00,000/day/transaction/occasion	Allowed if below threshold	Sec 269ST
Salary / wages	No explicit cash limit	Bank transfer preferred for traceability; above ₹20,000, maintain records	Sec 192
Rent payments	≤ ₹1,00,000/month cash	Exempt from TDS under 194-IB if within limit	Sec 194-IB
Medical reimbursements / professional fees / incidental expenses	≤ ₹10,000/person/day	Proper bills/invoices; maintain records	Sec 269ST / Rule 114E

Insight: Limits differ per purpose; documentation and digital transactions preferred to reduce risk of notices or penalties.

High-Risk & Trigger Points

• Savings account deposits > ₹10L/year → triggers SFT

• Daily cash receipts ≥ ₹2L → 269ST penalties

• Cash loans > ₹20,000 → Sections 269SS/269T penalties

• Property transactions > ₹20,000 in cash → SFT / 269ST triggers

• Non-filing of ITR → 194N TDS on withdrawals > ₹20L

• Unexplained cash detected by AI / SFT → 115BBE + penalty

Auditor Role: Verify all cash-intensive transactions, reconcile with ITR & SFT, validate sources, ensure documentation.

AI & SFT Enforcement — Reality vs Social Media Myths

• AI Monitoring: Detects unusual patterns across PAN, bank, property, FDs, mutual funds

• SFT Expansion: Routine high-value transactions flagged automatically

• Automatic Notices & Penalties: 115BBE / 269ST / 269SS / 269T triggers

• Social Media Myths vs Reality

Claim	Reality
“New rules in 2025”	No new law; enforcement visibility increased
“All cash deposits taxed 84%”	Only unexplained cash under Sections 68–69A / 115BBE
“ITD targets small taxpayers”	Primarily high-value transactions flagged by SFT / AI
“Social media tips suffice”	Professional guidance and documentation essential

Extended ITR Timeline — Strategic Importance

• Four-year scrutiny ensures multi-year verification of transactions

• Deterrence effect: discourages non-compliance

• Auditor Role: Reconcile 4 years of cash deposits, loans, and property, validate sources, and provide advisory for mitigation

Compliance & Strategic Action — FY 2025–26

1. Digitize transactions → NEFT, RTGS, UPI for amounts > ₹20k

2. Document loans & advances → Agreements, PAN, repayment schedule

3. Track SFT triggers → Maintain internal dashboards

4. Maintain multi-year records → Reconcile past 4 years for ITR/SFT alignment

5. Timely ITR filing → Avoid 194N TDS and AI/SFT notices

6. Audit verification → Review cash-intensive operations and high-risk transactions

7. Proactive advisory → Educate clients about AI, SFT, and cash handling limits

Key Takeaways

• Hype ≠ new law; enforcement visibility and penalties have increased

• Intent remains: transparency, compliance, black money prevention

• Auditor & CA roles critical: verification, documentation, advisory

• Strategic compliance: digitize, formalize, document, reconcile, and file ITR timely

• Board-level awareness: implement structured internal controls and compliance workflows

Bottom Line: FY 2025–26 is where long-standing cash rules intersect with AI-powered enforcement, making it essential to understand thresholds, allowed/disallowed transactions, trigger points, and strategic compliance steps to mitigate penalties and reputational risk.

Form 67 & ITR Revision: Strategic Timeline for Disclosure of Foreign Assets

By CA Surekha S Ahuja

In the globalized financial landscape, Indian taxpayers holding foreign assets must navigate mandatory disclosure obligations carefully. Foreign asset reporting in Schedule FA is non-negotiable, and claiming Foreign Tax Credit (FTC) requires Form 67.

While earlier, we highlighted the importance of foreign asset compliance in posts like “Your Last Legal Window to Correct Past Returns – AY 2025–26 and Earlier Years”, this post adopts a strategic, timeline-based approach. It helps taxpayers, boards, and HNWI advisors ensure risk-free compliance, maximize FTC benefits, and mitigate penalties under Sec 271/271B.

Step 1: Identify Your Foreign Assets

Begin with a complete inventory of all foreign holdings:

• Bank Accounts: Savings, current, term deposits abroad.

• Financial Interests: Shares, bonds, mutual funds, partnerships in foreign entities.

• Immovable Property: Land, buildings, commercial property abroad.

• Other Financial Instruments: Life insurance policies, crypto assets, trusts overseas.

Board-level insight: Maintain a centralized foreign asset ledger to enable accurate compliance, risk assessment, and proactive tax planning.

Step 2: Determine the Need for Form 67

Form 67 is mandatory only for claiming FTC under Sec 90/91 (DTAA or unilateral credit). Key considerations:

• FTC claim for taxes paid abroad.

• Attachment of proof of taxes paid abroad.

• Filing Form 67 along with revised or original ITR, not separately.

Strategic tip: Even without FTC, Schedule FA reporting is mandatory. Boards and HNWI advisors should verify full disclosure to avoid compliance gaps.

Step 3: Assess ITR Revision Requirement

If foreign assets or FTC were omitted in the original ITR, revision is mandatory under Sec 139(5):

• Deadline for AY 2025–26: 31.12.2025.

• ITR-U for the last 4 years: If FTC or foreign asset disclosure was missed, taxpayers can file Updated Returns (ITR-U) for prior Assessment Years.

Common scenarios requiring revision:

• FTC not claimed previously.

• Foreign bank accounts, dividends, or investments omitted.

• FX gains/losses missed in earlier filings.

Board-level advisory: Early detection and revision mitigate penalties, interest, and audit risk. Quarterly internal reviews are recommended for multi-entity setups.

Step 4: Filing Form 67

Ensure accurate completion:

• Include nature of asset, country, and taxes paid.

• Attach supporting proof: bank statements, tax certificates, investment statements.

• Cross-verify Form 67 vs revised ITR for consistency.

Pro Tip: Mismatches can trigger department scrutiny, delaying FTC claims.

Step 5: Filing Revised ITR / ITR-U

• Select “Revised Return” or ITR-U in the portal.

• Cross-check Form 67 vs Schedule FA disclosure.

• Claim FTC under Sec 90/91 as per DTAA provisions.

• Maintain documentation for audits and future assessments.

Step 6: Timeline for Strategic Compliance

Step	Applicable Years / Timeline	Key Advisory Insight
Identify foreign assets	Ongoing	Centralized ledger for HNWI / board-level review
Prepare Form 67	Before filing/revision	Verify taxes paid abroad, ensure proof
File ITR-U	Last 4 AYs (if disclosure missed)	Mitigate past non-compliance
Revise ITR	AY 2025–26 before 31.12.2025	Avoid penalties, ensure portal compliance
Maintain documents	Continuous	Audit-ready, support FX/FTC planning

Visual reminder: (Embed infographic showing last 4 years → ITR-U → AY 2025–26 revision → Form 67 → document trail)

Step 7: Strategic & Future-Facing Considerations

1. Full Disclosure First: Even without FTC, Schedule FA reporting is mandatory.

2. Document Trails: Maintain all proof for audits or voluntary disclosures.

3. FX & FTC Planning: Track foreign exchange gains/losses to optimize tax outcomes in subsequent years.

4. Board-Level Integration: Align foreign asset compliance with treasury, finance, and governance functions.

5. Penalty Mitigation: Proactive disclosure avoids Sec 271/271B penalties and reduces litigation risk.

Advisory Angle: Form 67 and ITR revisions are not just compliance exercises—they are strategic risk management tools for boards, executives, and HNWI clients.

Conclusion

Timely identification of foreign assets, accurate filing of Form 67, and revision of ITR under Sec 139(5) or ITR-U for past years is critical for compliance and strategic tax management. Integrating this process into a board-level compliance framework transforms it into a forward-looking risk management and tax optimization strategy.

For further guidance, see our earlier post: “Your Last Legal Window to Correct Past Returns – AY 2025–26 and Earlier Years”. 

Discontinuance Is Not Dissolution - Capital Gains on Firm Property: Law Settled, Strategy Rewritten

 BY CA Surekha S Ahuja

Tax outcomes do not follow business sentiment. They follow ownership, documentation, and timing.

The ITAT Visakhapatnam ruling in Vivek Industries v. ITO (December 2025) decisively settles a long-debated issue in partnership taxation:

Can a firm that has stopped business shift capital gains tax on its property to its partners?

The answer is now unequivocal—No.

This judgment is not merely about capital gains computation. It is a structural ruling that dismantles aggressive post-sale tax repositioning and reaffirms that legal ownership—not commercial intention—determines taxability.

For promoters, boards, and advisors dealing with immovable property exits, this ruling redraws the strategic map.

CORE CONTENT – WHAT THE LAW NOW ESTABLISHES

1. Discontinuance Does Not Change Ownership

The Tribunal clarified a critical distinction:

• Discontinuance of business is only stoppage of operations

• It does not dissolve the firm

• It does not vest firm assets in partners

Until there is:

• Formal dissolution, and

• Legal distribution of assets,

the firm continues to be the legal owner of its property.

Ownership does not fade away with inactivity—it transfers only through law.

2. Section 176(3): Procedural Compliance with Substantive Effect

Failure to intimate business discontinuance to the Assessing Officer under Section 176(3) proved fatal.

The Tribunal reinforced that:

• Discontinuance is a statutory event, not a factual claim

• Intimation to other authorities is irrelevant

• Without Section 176(3) compliance, claims of closure lack legal standing

Practical Reality:
If the tax department is not informed, the business is alive in law.

3. Capital Gains Taxable Only in Hands of the “Right Person”

Relying on ITO v. C.H. Atchaiah (SC), the Tribunal reaffirmed:

Income must be taxed only in the hands of the entity that legally earns it.

Accordingly:

• Capital gains on firm property cannot be assessed in partners’ hands

• Partner-level exemptions (Sections 54F / 54EC) are invalid

• Taxes wrongly paid by partners must be credited to the firm

This doctrine safeguards correct taxation—it does not validate flawed structuring.

4. Land vs Building: Documents Override Assumptions

The Assessing Officer attempted to:

• Split consideration between land and building

• Tax building as STCG under Section 50

The Tribunal rejected this approach because:

• The registered sale deed transferred only land

• No building was conveyed or valued

Law Affirmed:
What is not transferred under the deed cannot be taxed by estimation.

STRATEGIC VIEW – HOW FUTURE DECISIONS MUST BE MADE

Firm vs Partner Sale: The Only Valid Decision Framework

Step 1: Identify current legal ownership
→ Firm
→ Partners / Co-owners

If the Firm Is the Owner

• Firm sells → Firm pays capital gains tax

• Partner-level exemptions are not available

If partners desire individual exemptions:

Ownership must be transferred before sale, through:

• Formal dissolution

• Registered asset distribution

• Mutation of records

• Section 176(3) compliance

Post-2021 Strategic Reality (Critical Overlay)

Even after proper distribution:

• Section 9B taxes the firm on FMV of assets transferred

• Revised Section 45(4) taxes excess over partners’ capital balance

Distribution itself is now a taxable exit.

There is no longer any silent migration of assets from firm to partners.

Board-Level Questions That Must Be Answered Before Sale

1. Who should bear the tax—firm or individuals?

2. Is individual exemption worth firm-level exit tax?

3. Are we prepared for FMV exposure under Section 9B?

4. Is sale documentation aligned with tax intent?

5. Has every statutory compliance been completed before negotiations?

If these questions arise after signing the sale deed, the tax outcome is already sealed.

The Vivek Industries ruling delivers a clear, uncompromising message:

There is no tax arbitrage between a firm and its partners without first transferring ownership—and ownership transfer itself is taxable.

For promoters, boards, and advisors, the takeaway is strategic, not technical:

• Stoppage of business is not a tax exit

• Intention does not override title

• Planning after sale is not planning

Closing Thought

In tax law, exits are designed at the structuring stage—not at registration. Everything else is damage control.

 

 

When Silence Is Not an Asset: The Supreme Court’s Blueprint for Tax-Efficient Startup Exits

By CA Surekha S Ahuja 

When Silence Is Not an Asset

The Supreme Court’s Blueprint for Tax-Efficient Startup Exits

In every exit, the buyer pays for what exists and pays again to ensure nothing disrupts it. That second payment is not ownership. It is reassurance.

Startup exits are rarely about assets alone. They are about people, timing, credibility, and continuity. Founders carry institutional memory, market influence, and competitive capacity long after they exit the shareholding. For acquirers, the real risk is not what they buy, but what might follow after the exit.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Sharp Business System v. Commissioner of Income-tax (2025) recognises this commercial reality and aligns tax law with how modern businesses function. The judgment provides long-awaited clarity on the tax treatment of non-compete fees and, more importantly, offers a practical blueprint for exit structuring by startups.

What the Supreme Court Has Clarified

The Supreme Court has held that a non-compete fee paid to restrain competition, where no asset, intellectual property, or proprietary right is acquired, constitutes revenue expenditure allowable under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, irrespective of the duration of the restraint.

In doing so, the Court has decisively rejected the notion that the mere presence of an enduring benefit automatically places an expenditure in the capital field. The focus, instead, is on the nature and function of the payment.

Why Silence Cannot Be Treated as Capital

A capital asset must be capable of ownership, transfer, or independent exploitation. A non-compete obligation satisfies none of these conditions.

Silence cannot be sold, licensed, or assigned. It does not exist independently of the individual who gives the undertaking. Once the restrictive period ends, nothing survives that can be characterised as an asset.

The Supreme Court correctly observed that a non-compete payment does not add to the profit-earning apparatus of the business. It merely protects the manner in which profits are earned. This distinction lies at the heart of the ruling.

The Commercial Function of Non-Compete Fees in Startup Exits

In the startup ecosystem, non-compete arrangements typically serve limited and specific purposes.

They provide a transition window for the buyer to stabilise operations.
They protect customer relationships and investor confidence.
They prevent immediate market disruption during a sensitive post-exit phase.

None of these outcomes involve the acquisition of new capabilities or expansion of business structure. They are defensive, not acquisitive. The Supreme Court’s reasoning acknowledges that such payments operate squarely in the revenue field.

Tax Planning Implications for Startup Exits

The judgment enables tax-efficient exit planning, provided transactions are structured with clarity and discipline.

Where a non-compete payment is genuinely made to ensure business continuity and is not linked to the transfer of intellectual property, brand value, technology, or customer rights, the expenditure should be treated as revenue in nature. This allows immediate deduction under Section 37(1) in the year of payment.

However, the benefit of this ruling is not automatic. It depends on whether the documentation and transaction structure reflect the true commercial intent.

Common Errors That Lead to Avoidable Disputes

Despite judicial clarity, disputes will arise where execution is flawed.

Problems typically occur when non-compete consideration is merged with acquisition price, when agreements use language suggestive of ownership or exclusivity, or when there is no contemporaneous explanation of the commercial necessity for the payment.

In such cases, it is not the law that fails, but the articulation of the transaction.

Guidance for Startup Boards and Founders

Boards should treat non-compete payments as transition and risk-mitigation costs rather than acquisition costs. This perspective aligns governance decisions with judicial reasoning and significantly reduces future tax exposure.

For founders, the judgment reinforces an important distinction. Agreeing not to compete is not the sale of what was built. It is a commitment regarding future conduct. Recognising this helps founders negotiate exits cleanly and helps buyers structure payments with confidence.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Sharp Business System is not merely a ruling on deductibility. It is a recognition of how businesses actually transition and how risk is managed in modern commercial arrangements.

Protecting a business from disruption is not the same as acquiring a business advantage. Silence is not property. Restraint is not ownership.

For startups, this judgment offers clarity, certainty, and a framework for cleaner exits, better tax planning, and reduced litigation. It rewards honest structuring and penalises artificial characterisation.

The most successful exits are not those that maximise valuation alone. They are the ones that leave behind certainty.

Non-Compete Fees After Sharp Business System (SC)

 By CA Surekha S Ahuja

The Definitive Decision-Making, Tax-Planning & Risk-Avoidance Framework

Sharp Business System v. Commissioner of Income-tax
[2025] 181 taxmann.com 657 (Supreme Court)

Why This Judgment Changes Tax Planning Forever

The Supreme Court has not merely allowed a deduction.
It has re-engineered the analytical framework for determining whether an expenditure is capital or revenue.

The Court has shifted the inquiry from
“How long does the benefit last?”
to
“What role does the payment play in the business?”

This distinction is critical for future planning, not just past litigation.

 What the Supreme Court Actually Decided (Substantive Ratio)

The Core Holding

A non-compete fee:

• Is paid to restrain competition

• Protects or facilitates the carrying on of business

• Does not create or add to the profit-earning apparatus

• Does not result in ownership or acquisition of any asset

Therefore:

Such payment is revenue expenditure allowable under Section 37(1),
irrespective of the duration of benefit.

The Supreme Court’s Master Test (Unwritten but Clear)

From the reasoning of the Court, the following master test emerges:

If an expenditure improves the conditions under which a business operates, without altering the structure of the business itself, it belongs to the revenue field.

Non-compete fees fall squarely within this test.

Strategic Judicial Tests for Future Decision-Making

These are the tests the Department will apply—and which you must pre-emptively satisfy.

Business Structure Test (Most Critical)

Ask:
Did the payment change the business itself or merely the business environment?

Impact	Tax Character
Change in assets, IP, ownership	Capital
Change in competitive landscape	Revenue

Non-compete fees only change the landscape, not the structure.

Asset Creation Test

Question:
Did the payment result in something that can be owned, transferred, or exploited independently?

If the answer to all is NO:

• Cannot be sold

• Cannot be transferred

• Cannot be licensed

• Cannot be monetised independently

→ No capital asset exists.

This demolishes capitalisation attempts.

3. Profit-Earning Apparatus vs Process Test

The Court draws a sharp line between:

• Apparatus → the machinery of earning profits (capital)

• Process → the manner of earning profits (revenue)

Non-compete fees operate entirely in the process zone.

Enduring Benefit Re-calibrated Test

Post-Sharp Rule:

Enduring benefit is relevant only if it lies in the capital field.

Thus:

• Enduring operational advantage → Revenue

• Enduring structural advantage → Capital

This is the single most powerful clarification of the judgment.

5. Substitution Test (Litigation-Proof)

Ask:
Does this payment substitute or replace an asset?

• Replacement of asset → Capital

• Prevention of competition → Revenue

Non-compete prevents rivalry; it does not substitute capital.

Scenario-Based Applicability (Decision Matrix)

Scenario 1: Stand-Alone Non-Compete Agreement

Tax Outcome: Revenue expenditure

Reason:
Pure commercial protection; no acquisition.

Scenario 2: Acquisition + Non-Compete (Promoter Level)

Key Question:
Is the non-compete:

• Integral to acquisition price? → Capital risk

• Independent restraint to ensure smooth operations? → Revenue

Best Practice:

• Separate valuation

• Separate agreements

• Clear allocation

Scenario 3: Non-Compete with IP or Brand Transfer

Correct Approach:

• Capitalise IP/brand

• Deduct non-compete

Risk if not split:
Entire payment may be disputed.

Scenario 4: Settlement or Exit-Based Non-Compete

Strongest revenue case.

Judicial Support:
Payments to buy peace or exit competition facilitate trade.

Scenario 5: Long-Term or Permanent Restraints

Key Insight from SC:
Duration is irrelevant if business structure remains untouched.

Still revenue.

How to Use This Judgment as a Tax-Planning Tool

1. Timing Advantage

• Claim 100% deduction in year of payment

• Avoid depreciation uncertainty

• Improve cash flows

2. Transaction Structuring

• Separate non-compete from acquisition price

• Avoid composite lump-sum consideration

• Support with commercial rationale

3. Documentation Strategy

Agreements should highlight:

• Business continuity

• Operational efficiency

• Risk mitigation

• Absence of asset transfer

Avoid:

• Language suggesting ownership or exclusivity

• Bundling with IP without allocation

Points for Consideration to Avoid Future Defaults & Disallowances

Documentation Red Flags to Avoid

• Calling non-compete a “right”

• Linking it to market dominance

• Treating it as transferable

• Absence of commercial justification

Accounting & Tax Alignment

• Expense in P&L (not capitalise)

• Disclose rationale in tax audit report if material

• Maintain valuation support where amounts are large

Assessment Defense Readiness

Keep ready:

• Business necessity note

• Board approval

• Competitive risk analysis

• Independent valuation (if high value)

If the payment makes the business safer to run but does not make it bigger to own, it is revenue expenditure.

This single rule captures the entire judgment.

Why Sharp Business System Will Shape Future Litigation

This ruling will now be cited for:

• Non-compete fees

• Settlement payments

• Market exit payments

• Restrictive covenants

• Capital vs revenue disputes

It restores coherence, predictability, and commercial logic to tax law.

Final Professional View

The Supreme Court has recognised a fundamental business truth:

Paying to reduce competition is not an investment—it is operational survival.

Used wisely, this judgment becomes:

• A planning instrument

• A litigation shield

• A structuring guide

Not merely a precedent.

High Refund Claimants Are Receiving Emails from the Income-tax Department

By CA Surekha S Ahuja 

What It Really Means, Why It Happens, and the Right Way to Respond (AY 2025–26)

If your income-tax refund is unusually high compared to TDS, this email is not a notice — it is a signal.

Over the past few weeks, a large number of taxpayers have received emails from the Income-tax Department stating that their AY 2025–26 Income-tax Return has been kept on hold because a significant portion of TDS has been claimed as refund.

The email is polite, advisory in tone, yet firm in message.
It has raised a common concern among taxpayers:

“Is my refund blocked? Is scrutiny coming? Do I need to revise my return?”

This post answers all such questions clearly and decisively.

First and Most Important: This Email Is NOT a Notice

Let us remove the biggest fear upfront.

The communication sent to high refund claimants:

• Is not a notice under section 143(2)

• Is not a query under section 142(1)

• Does not initiate scrutiny, penalty, or prosecution

• Does not mandate any immediate reply

The Department itself clarifies that:

“This communication is intended to alert you… It is not a Notice.”

It is an automated advisory alert issued under the Risk Management Framework before processing the refund.

Why Are High Refund Claims Being Flagged?

The stated reason in the email is:

“A significant proportion of TDS deducted on Gross Total Income has been claimed as refund.”

In simple terms, your case is flagged because:

• TDS deducted is comparatively high, while

• Final tax payable after deductions/exemptions is low or nil

This situation commonly arises in perfectly genuine cases, such as:

• Excess TDS deducted by employer

• High TDS on FD or NRO interest

• Salary income with deductions not reflected in Form 16

• Capital gains with loss set-off

• Tax regime mismatch between employer and taxpayer

A high refund does not mean a wrong return.
It only means the system wants to verify before releasing money.

The Sentence That Matters — and Its True Meaning

The email contains a crucial line:

“If you don’t act now, it may be construed as a deliberate choice. That may mean your case may be selected for detailed investigation.”

This is not a threat.
It is a clear allocation of responsibility.

The Department is effectively saying:

• Review your return now

• Correct any mistake voluntarily

• If you choose not to revise, be prepared to substantiate later

This is the last non-adversarial stage before the case may move from processing to assessment.

Why Even Fully Compliant Taxpayers Receive These Emails

From practical assessment experience, such alerts are triggered due to:

• Very high refund percentage vis-à-vis total TDS

• Mismatch between ITR and:

  • Form 16

  • Form 26AS

  • AIS / TIS

• Large deductions not mirrored in employer data

• Pattern-based or clustered high-refund claims

Importantly, many accurate and compliant returns are flagged simply because they are unusual, not incorrect.

What High Refund Claimants Should Do Now

Step 1: Re-check the Return Carefully

Reconcile:

• Income reported vs Form 16 / AIS

• TDS claimed vs Form 26AS and AIS

• Deductions claimed vs actual proofs

• Correct tax regime selection

Pay special attention where refund arises due to:

• Loss set-off

• Large Chapter VI-A deductions

• High TDS on interest income

Step 2: If Any Error Is Found — Revise the Return

If you identify:

• Excess TDS claimed

• Incorrect deduction

• Wrong income reporting

• Regime mismatch

 File a Revised Return under section 139(5).

Last date for AY 2025–26: 31 December 2025

A revised return replaces the original return completely and significantly reduces scrutiny risk.

Step 3: If the Return Is Fully Correct — You May Wait, But Be Prepared

If:

• Income is fully disclosed

• TDS credits are accurate

• Deductions are genuine and documented

Then:

• Revision is not compulsory

• Refund may still be released after internal verification (though with possible delay)

However:

• Keep all documents ready

• Preserve reconciliation workings

• Respond to AIS mismatches, if any

Preparedness today prevents prolonged litigation tomorrow.

What Happens If You Miss 31 December 2025?

From 1 January 2026, correction is possible only through an Updated Return (ITR-U):

• Can only increase tax liability

• Refund enhancement is not allowed

• Additional tax of 25% or 50% applies

Hence, revising before 31 December is always safer and cheaper.

Key Takeaways for High Refund Claimants

• This email is not punitive

• It is a preventive alert

• It offers a final self-correction window

• High refund years attract closer system attention

• Timely review and documentation are the best defense

If you are a high refund claimant, this email is not a problem — it is an opportunity.

An opportunity to:

• Review calmly

• Correct voluntarily if needed

• Protect your refund

• Avoid unnecessary scrutiny

Revise if wrong.
Wait if right.
But decide before 31 December 2025.

CBDT’s NUDGE on Deductions & Exemptions

By CA Surekha S Ahuja 

Not a Notice. Not Routine. A Final Compliance Signal.”

Data may not accuse. But it rarely alerts without cause.

After intensifying scrutiny on foreign assets and offshore income, the Income-tax Department has now formally shifted focus to domestic deduction and exemption claims through a CBDT press release dated 23 December 2025.

This communication, issued under the NUDGE (Non-Intrusive Usage of Data to Guide and Enable) framework, is not a statutory notice.
But professionally, it must be read as a pre-enforcement compliance alert.

What Has Triggered This NUDGE

The Department has openly acknowledged that advanced risk analytics have already identified specific returns—particularly for AY 2025–26, with spill-over analytics for earlier years.

The risk markers include:

• Ineligible or excessive deduction / exemption claims

• Bogus or doubtful donations, including to Registered Unrecognised Political Parties (RUPPs)

• Invalid or mismatched PANs of donees

• Errors in computation limits or conditions

This is not random outreach.
It is return-specific, data-validated shortlisting.

Why This Communication Matters

Historically, advisories were generic.
This one is targeted, quantified and outcome-driven.

CBDT itself has disclosed that:

• Over 21 lakh returns for AYs 2021–22 to 2024–25 have already been revised

• More than ₹2,500 crore in additional tax has been voluntarily paid

• Over 15 lakh revisions have already occurred for AY 2025–26

This is no longer policy experimentation.
It is institutionalised compliance enforcement through voluntary correction.

The Legal Importance of 31 December 2025

Just as with foreign asset disclosures, 31 December 2025 is a hard statutory boundary.

Up to 31 December 2025

• Revised return permissible

• No additional tax

• Lower litigation and penalty exposure

• Strong presumption of bonafide correction

From 1 January 2026

• Only Updated Return (Section 139(8A)) possible

• Mandatory additional levy

• Weaker defence against penalty allegations

• Higher scrutiny probability

The message is unambiguous:

Correct now, while law still presumes good faith.

Scope Is Multi-Year — Not Limited to AY 2025–26

Although the press release references AY 2025–26, CBDT has clearly stated that:

• Analytics cover AY 2021–22 to AY 2024–25

• Past behaviour is being evaluated for consistency

• Patterns, not isolated claims, are now decisive

A single incorrect deduction today may reopen credibility for multiple years.

An Important Safeguard — Often Misread

CBDT has expressly clarified:

Taxpayers whose deduction or exemption claims are genuine and correctly made in accordance with law are not required to take any action.

This is significant—but conditional.

In today’s regime:

• A genuine claim without documentation is vulnerable

• Silence without preparedness is no longer safe

Professional Advisory — What Taxpayers Should Do Now

This is not the time for:

• Blanket revisions

• Panic withdrawals of valid deductions

• Mechanical compliance

This is the time for:

• Section-wise eligibility re-validation

• Verification of donee status, PAN and approval

• Limit and computation review

• AIS / TIS reconciliation

• Strategic decision on whether revision is legally necessary or professionally avoidable

Precision matters more than speed.

Consequences of Inaction

If discrepancies are later established:

• Disallowance becomes automatic

• Interest under sections 234B / 234C follows

• Penalty exposure under Section 270A becomes defensible

• Donation cases may invite intent-based allegations

The NUDGE phase is the lowest-cost exit from this enforcement cycle.

The Larger Compliance Message

Read together with the Department’s parallel action on foreign assets, the message is clear:

Data identifies first.
Voluntary compliance follows.
Law enforces only if required.

Those who respond now will likely never hear back.
Those who ignore it may enter formal assessment territory with limited defences.

This is not about fear.
It is about foresight.

Income-tax Notices for Foreign Assets: Complete Legal Guide to Revised ITR, Belated ITR and ITR-U (AY 2021-22 to 2025-26)

 By CA Surekha S Ahuja

Your Last Legal Window to Correct Past Returns – AY 2025–26 and Earlier Years 

“Data can trigger notices. Only timely compliance can neutralise consequences.”

With the Income-tax Department intensifying data-driven scrutiny under FATCA, CRS, AIS and international exchange mechanisms, a large number of taxpayers are now receiving alerts and notices for non-disclosure or incorrect disclosure of foreign assets and foreign income.

If you are a resident (or RNOR in earlier years) who has:

• Held a foreign bank account

• Invested in foreign shares / ETFs

• Received ESOPs, RSUs or foreign pension

• Held crypto or digital assets outside India

• Earned foreign interest, dividends or capital gains

This is your final legal opportunity to correct past filings before penal and prosecution provisions get triggered.

The Compliance Choices Available Today (At a Glance)

There are three distinct statutory routes, each governed by different sections and deadlines:

Situation	Applicable Section	Form	Last Date
Revise a timely filed return for AY 2025–26	Section 139(5)	Original ITR	31 December 2025
File a belated return for AY 2025–26 (missed original due date)	Section 139(4)	Original ITR	31 December 2025
Correct / disclose foreign income or assets for past years	Section 139(8A)	ITR-U	FY-wise (up to 5 years)

AY 2025–26 (FY 2024–25): Immediate Action Required

Who should act before 31 December 2025

• You filed ITR but missed foreign asset disclosure (Schedule FA)

• You declared income but missed foreign interest/dividend

• You used wrong residential status affecting FA disclosure

• You did not file ITR at all for FY 2024–25

Available Options

• Revised Return – Section 139(5)
  (If original return already filed)

• Belated Return – Section 139(4)
  (If no return filed yet)

 After 31 December 2025, neither revision nor belated filing is possible for AY 2025–26.

Past Years (AY 2021–22 to AY 2024–25): ITR-U Is the Only Route

Once the belated return window closes, the only legally permissible method to correct past non-disclosures is Updated Return (ITR-U) under Section 139(8A).

FY-Wise Legal Deadlines

Financial Year	AY	Belated ITR	ITR-U Deadline
FY 2020–21	AY 2021–22	Closed	31 March 2026
FY 2021–22	AY 2022–23	Closed	31 March 2027
FY 2022–23	AY 2023–24	Closed	31 March 2028
FY 2023–24	AY 2024–25	Closed after Dec 2025	31 March 2029
FY 2024–25	AY 2025–26	Open till 31 Dec 2025	31 March 2030

As on today, foreign asset holders can:

• File belated ITR for FY 2024–25 (till 31.12.2025)

• File ITR-U for FY 2020–21 to FY 2023–24

What Is ITR-U (Section 139(8A)) – Legal Scope Explained

ITR-U is not a voluntary scheme. It is a statutory correction window.

Who can file

• Any assessee (individual, firm, company)

• To disclose previously unreported income

• To correct foreign asset/income non-disclosure

• Even if return was earlier filed (or not filed)

Who cannot file

• If assessment / reassessment already completed for that year

• If return would result in:

  • Refund

  • Reduction of tax liability

  • Carry forward of loss

• If prosecution already initiated

Additional Tax Cost under ITR-U (Non-Negotiable)

ITR-U carries an additional levy, over and above normal tax and interest.

Levy Structure

Time from End of AY	Additional Levy
Within 12 months	25%
12–24 months	50%
24–48 months	60%

How Tax Is Computed

(Tax on total income
+ Interest u/s 234A / 234B / 234C)
× Applicable Additional Levy

Example (FY 2020–21 – Filed by March 2026)

• Undisclosed foreign income: ₹1,00,000

• Base tax + interest: ₹35,800

• Applicable levy: 60%

• Additional tax: ₹21,480

• Total payable: ₹57,280

Slab rates applicable are those of the original financial year, not current slabs.

Comparison: Belated Return vs ITR-U

Particulars	Belated ITR	ITR-U
Section	139(4)	139(8A)
Time window	Limited	Up to 5 years
Additional levy	No	Yes (25%–60%)
Late fee u/s 234F	₹1,000–₹5,000	Not applicable
Refund allowed	Yes	No
Loss carry forward	Allowed	Not allowed

Why Immediate Action Is Critical for Foreign Asset Holders

Failure to correct now can expose you to:

• Section 50, Black Money Act – penalty up to 3× tax

• Section 271AAC / 270A – misreporting penalty

• Prosecution risk under BMA

• Reopening under Section 148 based on foreign data

• Compounded interest and denial of immunity

ITR-U is the last statutory shield before enforcement provisions apply.