Direct Taxes
Finance Bill, 2026 – An overview – A way forward to “Viksit Bharat 2047”
Dr. K. Shivaram, Senior Advocate &
Shashi Bekal, Advocate
Introduction.
The Finance Bill, 2026, assumes special significance in India’s evolving fiscal and economic landscape. Coming at a time when India is positioning itself towards the ambitious national goal of “Viksit Bharat 2047”, marking 100 years of independence. The Bill is not merely an annual exercise of tax amendments, but a step towards long-term structural reforms. Thus, a holistic overview becomes necessary to understand the impact of these proposals and the way forward towards a robust tax ecosystem by 2047. In this article, we will be discussing only a few important provisions of the direct tax proposals.
The Finance Bill, 2026, seeks to balance multiple objectives:
- Simplification of tax provisions
- Reduction of litigation
- Strengthening of the compliance framework
- Boosting investor confidence
- Aligning tax administration with digital governance.
Some of the conceptual measures that need to be addressed are:
- Allocation of funds to the Judiciary.
Almost all sectors have allocated more funds, whereas the Union Budget 2026-27 has allocated Rs.4509 crores for the Ministry of Law and Justice, representing a reduction from the 2025-26 revised estimate of Rs. 5,189 crores, in spite of the pendency of litigation before various courts increasing year after year. Judiciary gets only 0.08% allocation. One of the reasons for the delay in disposal of cases are lack of infrastructure in the lower judiciary and not appointing the judicial officers within a reasonable time. The ITAT Mumbai members’ library has not functional for more than three years. It seems that due to a lack of funds, the library could not be renovated.
The need of the Hour is that the Judiciary also requires sufficient allocation of funds so that it can also contribute to achieving “Vikshit Bharat 2047”. We must acknowledge and appreciate that we have made considerable progress in reducing tax litigations before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The matters are taken up for hearing within three months of the filing of an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Whereas there are more than five lakhs of appeals pending before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals.) Some of the appeals have been pending for more than seven years. Honourable High Court in Kulwinder Paul Singh v. CBDT (2025) 475 ITR 371 (P& H)(HC), observed that inordinate delay in disposing of the appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) would defeat the objective of the provision. If the appeal was not disposed of within this period, the reasons for such delay must be explicitly recorded in the orders, so as to reflect whether the delay was attributable to the assessee or the Department, and efforts should be made to decide the appeals within a period of two years. The order copy was sent to the Union of India and the Central Board of Direct Taxes for necessary action. Unless the department adopts some drastic measures, the pendency cannot be reduced. In the Bombay High Court, appeals admitted in the year 2004 are pending for final disposal (More than 21 years).
From 1st April 2026, the Income -Tax Act, 2025, will be implemented. When the appeals under the new Income Tax Act, 2025, are taken up, it is desired that all pending appeals before the various High Courts may be decided at the earliest. Few suggestions for consideration are discussed in this article.
- Reducing litigation before various High Courts.
2.1. Publication of issues pending before on direct taxes before various High Courts and the Apex Court on direct taxes.
When an Appeal or Writ Petition is filed before various High Courts, the Revenue is always either the Petitioner or Respondent. As soon as appeals are filed, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) can get the information from the respective Commissioners in respect of the issues pending before various High Courts, and these can be compiled and published on the website of the CBDT under the legal corner. This will help both the taxpayers and the tax administration. When an issue came before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court directed the Revenue to publish the information on its website. Though an assurance was given to the Hon’ble Bombay High Court by filing an affidavit stating that the website would be functional from 15-6-2016, this has not been complied with. Reference can be made to CIT v. TCL India Holding Pvt. Ltd. (Bom.)(HC); (ITA No. 2287 of 2013, dated May 06, 2016) www.itatonline.org. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has developed a system wherein the Hon’ble President of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal gets the information from all 63 Benches across the country about how many appeals are filed in respective Benches and how many have been disposed of. The list is prepared every month for the appeals filed and the disposal of appeals by the respective Members of the ITAT. We suggest that such a system may be adopted by the CBDT to know the pendency of appeals across the country before various High Courts and the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and the issues involved. The list can be published on the website of the CBDT, which will help the Revenue as well as the Assessees.
2.2. Appeals to High Court: Acceptance of orders of High Courts.
In the earlier days, whenever the Department would accept a decision of a particular High Court on the interpretation of law, the Central Board of Direct Taxes used to issue a circular stating that the judgment had been accepted. This practice seems to have been discontinued now. If this process is adopted and instructions /circulars are published, litigation will be reduced considerably and shall prove invaluable for the ease of doing business in India by bringing certainty to tax laws. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. TCL Ltd. (2016) 241 Taxman 138 (Bom.)(HC) has passed a detailed order asking the Chief Commissioner of Income tax to host details of the matters admitted before the Bombay High Court, matters accepted by the Revenue, etc., online. If the order of the Bombay High Court is implemented, it will surely be a positive step in reducing litigation.
The CBDT vide Circular No 1 of 2011 dated April 06, 2011 (2011) 333 ITR (St) 1, Instruction No 4 of 2011 (2011) 198 Taxman 14 (St) and Instruction No 7 of 2011 (2011) 199 Taxman 26 (St) which provided guidelines to the Department for filing Appeals/SLP’s clearly records that there were several instances where Appeals were filed by the Department even though Questions of Law were not involved. This also adds to the arrears of litigation.
It has been observed that when the quantum of addition is large, though a question of fact is involved, the Revenue files an appeal invariably to avoid any query on audit in future.
- Accountability.
Under the New Income-Tax Act 2025, which will take effect from April 01, 2026, there is no provision for accountability on the part of the tax administration.
Dr Raja J. Chelliah, in his report [(1992) 197 ITR 177 (St) (257) Para 5.9], “The Assessing Officers should be made accountable for their actions. If the percentage of demands not upheld by the Tribunals is higher than a reasonable figure, say 50 per cent, the officer should be given a blank mark and reprimanded. On the other hand, an Assessing Officer should be protected and defended if he has obeyed instructions of the Board and followed case laws even though an audit might raise concerns about his actions”.
We suggest that Accountability provisions may be incorporated by way of CBDT circulars or notifications. In the case of Prashant Chandra v. Harish Gidwani, Dy CIT [2024] 165 taxmann.com 471 (All)(HC), in a contempt application under section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, which was filed alleging wilful and deliberate disobedience of the judgment and order dt 31st March, 2015 passed by a Division Bench in Writ petition No. 9525 (MB) of 2013, the Allahabad High court held that disobedience of a Court’s order strikes at the very root of the rule of law upon which the judicial system rests. The rule of law is the foundation of a democratic society. The judiciary is the guardian of the rule of law. The Officer was held liable to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000 along with simple imprisonment for a period of one week, and was awarded to the contemnor.
In the case of Bloomberg Data Services (India) (P) Ltd. v. DCIT (2025) 302 Taxman 454 (Bom)(HC), where there was a delay in issuing the refunds, the court held that this was due to the laxity of the Department. The Court held that a refund of the tax amount, if any, ought to be immediately granted to the assessee. Delayed payment of refunds burdens the public exchequer due to interest that needs to be paid on the same. The Court also observed that Rules would be required to be framed and Accountability would be required to be fixed. In the last two years, on the basis of reported Judgements/Orders, one will find that there are large number of Special Leave petitions (SLP) that are dismissed only on account of delay in filing of SLP by the Revenue Authorities without a proper explanation of the reasons for delay. (Refer, Radha Madhav Investments (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT [2025] 302 Taxman 358 (SC) (Delay of 752 days, PCIT v. Joginder Singh Chatha [2025] 302 Taxman 5 (SC). (Delay of 233 days). One can give a list of a large number of cases that were dismissed only because the delay in taking up appropriate legal remedies was not properly explained. One will observe in a large number of matters that a tax credit was not given due to a mismatch. In spite of the remainders, no action is taken by the Assessing Officers.
The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Vibhsvari Bharat Bhatt v. ITO (WP No. (L.) No. 3032 of 2026 dated February 09, 2026 (Bom)(HC) www.itatonline.org has made strong observation as under “We caution the authorities, that in the future, whether they like it or not, the orders of the jurisdictional High Court have to be followed. If in the future we find that orders of this court are not followed by the Income tax Authorities, we will not hesitate to haul up the concerned officers for contempt, amongst other things”
This is mainly because there is no accountability provision in the tax law. It is a need of the hour that the Accountability provision be introduced.
- Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021.
In the case of Madras Bar Association v. UOI (SC) 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2498, the Honourable Supreme Court has struck down the Tribunal Reform Act, 2021. The Court strongly criticised the Government for persistently disregarding its repeated directions on tribunal appointments, observing that such non-compliance has caused massive vacancies, rendering several tribunals “on the verge of closure” and leading to a complete denial of access to justice. It directed the Government to ensure timely appointments and strictly adhere to the constitutional parameters earlier laid down. Honourable Court directed the Union of India a period of four months from the date of this judgment to establish a National Tribunals Commission. The commission so constituted must adhere to the principles articulated by this Court, particularly concerning independence from executive control, professional expertise, transparent processes, and oversight mechanisms that reinforce public confidence in the system. We hope the Government will honour the judgement of the Apex court and, when the National Tribunals Commission is constituted, will hear the stakeholders.
- Specific amendments in the Finance Bill, 2026.
5.2. Rationalising Penalty & Prosecution. (Sections, 379, 411, 439, 470, 471, 474 , 475, (Clauses, 71, 79, 84, 91, 92 , 94, 95)
In the present scheme of taxation first, an assessment order is passed, and based on the findings/ additions made in it and subject to the status of appellate proceedings, a penalty is initiated in the assessment order by the Assessing Officer. Subsequently, separate penalty proceedings are initiated by giving a show cause notice, which results in the passing of a separate penalty order after giving due opportunity to the assessee. This triggers yet another chain of appellate proceedings.
It is proposed that where a penalty is proposed to be levied under section 439 of the New Act, in those cases, a common order of assessment and penalty will be passed.
The present system of Assessment order and penalty order is well accepted in the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, as well as the Income-tax Act, 1961. When the appellate authority deletes the quantum addition or set a aside the assessment, the penalty proceedings will not survive. The whole exercise by the Assessing Officer to pass a penalty order may become futile. It is suggested that the present system of levying the penalty when the quantum is settled by the Appellate Authorities may be continued, and the proposed provision may be dropped.
Further, expanding the scope of immunity on levy of penalty or prosecution, it is proposed to amend the existing Section 440 of the New Act that allows an assessee to seek immunity from the imposition of penalty under Section 439 of the New Act and from initiation of prosecution proceedings under Sections 478/479 of the New Act relating to underreporting of income, if specified conditions are met. According to it, any taxpayer on whose case an assessment or reassessment order has been made under the relevant provisions, and has paid the tax and interest due within the demand period, and has not filed an appeal against that order, may apply.
As per the current provisions, granting of such immunity is not available for cases where penalty proceedings have been initiated for under-reporting in consequence of misreporting of income.
The scope of granting of immunity under section 440 of the Act is proposed to be expanded to cover all such cases where penalty proceedings are initiated for under-reporting in consequence of misreporting of income, provided the taxpayer pays an additional income-tax as specified in lieu of such penalty.
The proposed expansion of the scope of section 440 of the Act to cover all cases where penalty proceedings are initiated either for under-reporting income or for under-reporting income in consequence of misreporting. However, the taxpayer would be required to pay an additional income-tax in lieu of a penalty as prescribed for being eligible for granting an immunity for misreporting of income.
This is a welcome amendment and would definitely aid in reducing litigation.
Furthermore, the conversion of the levy of penalty to a fee in cases of delay in filing the audit report by amending section 454 of the Act is a welcome amendment. However, the nature of the fee is automatic in nature and without any ‘reasonable cause’ clause. This does not allow genuine cases to have their delay condoned.
Sections 475 to 478 & 494 of the New Act (Clauses 95 to 98 & 105) are being amended to partially decriminalise certain offences, fully decriminalise certain offences and change the nature and period of punishment prescribed therein. The maximum punishment for any offence has been brought down from its current 7 years to 2 years, and the punishment for subsequent offences has been brought down from its current 7 years to 3 years.
The earlier grading of Rs. 25 lakhs has been changed to the new grading. Now, the punishment for offences in case the amount of tax involved exceeds 50 lakhs rupees, shall be a maximum of 2 years; punishment in case the amount of tax involved exceeds 10 lakhs rupees but does not exceed 50 lakhs rupees shall be maximum 6 months; and punishment in case amount of tax involved does not exceeds 10 lakhs rupees shall be only fine.
The rationale of the grading is to rationalise the extent of punishment so as to persuade compliance. While prosecution leading to imprisonment as a punishment has been kept for offences involving deliberate disobedience and high tax evasion, the punishment has been monetary where the default is of lower value. The new grading system is progressive and inclusive in nature, keeping in view global practice as well as the spirit of Jan Viswas. The nature of punishment has been changed from rigorous punishment to simple imprisonment in sections 475 to 478 & 494 of the New Act. In case of certain offences, Imposition of a fine is introduced in lieu of or in addition to imprisonment. This is a welcome amendment.
The legal principle that the benefit of decriminalisation or reduction in punishment should be applied to pending cases is known as the doctrine of beneficial interpretation or the principle of the most lenient criminal law (LPMB).
In India, while Article 20(1) of the Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws (making a past act a crime or increasing punishment), it does not prohibit the retroactive application of a reduction in punishment or decriminalisation.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rattan Lal v. State of Punjab, AIR 1965 SC 444 (SC) held that if a later law reduces the punishment for an offence or decriminalises it, the reduced penalty can be applied retrospectively to benefit the accused.
Section 278E of the income -tax Act , 1961 deals with the presumption as to culpable mental state. As per the section, the burden is on the accused to prove that he had no such mental state with respect to the act charged as an offence in the prosecution. The need of the hour is that Section 490 of the New Act may be suitably amended, and the burden may be shifted to the revenue to prove culpable mental state. This will help to the large number of assesees the prosecution was launched only for technical offences.
Prosecution matters have been pending for disposal for more than 20 years before the Magistrate Courts. There has to be a research study on how to reduce the pendency of matters and the way forward. We hope the Government will constitute an expert committee to deliberate and to suggest appropriate measures which will benefit the assesses as well as the Revenue.
5.3. Changes in undisclosed income provisions. (S. 195, 439, 443) [Clauses 46, 84, 86]
Section 195 of the New Act corresponds to section 115BBE of the Old Act, which prescribed the rate of tax for addition on account of unexplained cash credits, unexplained investments, unexplained assets, unexplained investment and amount borrowed or repaid through negotiable instrument, hundi, etc.
It can be inferred that the rate of 60 per cent was prescribed with a view to penalising those taxpayers who did not avail the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016, which prescribed a rate of 45 per cent.
The rate of tax in the Income -tax Act, 1961 was increased to 60 per cent vide Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 2016. The said rate of 60 per cent was levied irrespective of voluntary disclosure or determined by the Assessing Officer.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vivek Narayan Sharma v. Union of India (2023 3 SCC 1) (4:1 majority) upheld the 2016 demonetisation scheme, declaring it reasonable, proportionate, and not unlawful. While this focused on the policy, it legitimised actions taken to curb black money.
It is now proposed to amend section 195 of the New Act to reduce the rate of tax to 30 per cent.
It is also clarified that there will be no levy of a penalty in case of voluntary disclosure, and in cases of income determined by the Assessing Officer, the provisions of section 439 of the New Act, i.e., under-reporting of income and misreporting of income, will follow.
A taxpayer can settle a dispute even after the determination of income by the Assessing Officer by offering additional income-tax amounting to 120 per cent of the amount of tax payable on under-reported income.
It is advisable to clarify that in the event of voluntary disclosure, the return will not protect the Assessee from any proceedings under other statutes, viz. Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, etc.
Further, on analysis of the proposed rate of tax, it can be seen that as per the current rate, the total effective outgo is 84 per cent [60 per cent tax + 25 per cent surcharge + 4 per cent education cess + 10 per cent penalty]
However, as per the proposed amendment, the total effective outgo in case of voluntary disclosure will be 39 per cent [30 per cent tax + 25 per cent surcharge + 4 per cent education cess] and in cases determined by the Assessing Officer, will be 99 per cent [30 per cent tax + 25 per cent surcharge + 4 per cent education cess + 200 per cent penalty]
The intention of the legislature appears to be forgiving and allowing taxpayers to come clean with a much lower effective outgo. At the same time, if the income is determined by the Assessing Officer, then the effective outgo rise is higher than what it presently is.
5.4. Taxation of buyback of shares. [S.2(40), 69] [Clauses 27 and 34]
As per the existing provisions, consideration received by a shareholder on buy-back of shares by a company is treated as dividend income and taxed accordingly, while the cost of acquisition of the shares extinguished on buy-back is recognised separately as a capital loss.
The said capital loss is only useful if there are capital gains in the same year or subsequent years.
It is proposed to once again treat buy back of shares as a capital gain. However, a distinction has been made among shareholders. For a non-promoter shareholder, the normal rates of long-term capital gain and short-term capital gains will prevail. Where the promoter shareholder is a domestic company, the rate of tax is 22 percent and for promoters other than a domestic company, the rate of tax is 30 per cent.
The proposal to tax the real income is welcomed. However, the same rate of tax for both long-term capital gains and short-term capital gains seems to be unreasonable, and the discrimination between promoters appears to be arbitrary.
For the purpose of buy-back, the term “promoters” is defined under section 34 of the New Act. In cases of a listed entity, on a recognised stock exchange in India, ‘promoter’ shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in regulation 2(k) of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Buy-Back of Securities) Regulations, 2018 made under the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 and in any other case, “promoter” as defined in section 2(69) of the Companies Act, 2013 or a person who holds, directly or indirectly, more than 10% of the shareholding in the company.
The usage of the term “indirectly” is not defined in the Act and has always invited litigation.
Further, whether shares acquired prior to 2017 would be grandfathered and whether the shareholders would get the benefit of the Treaty if the genuineness of the investment is doubted is a matter of uncertainty in light of the recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of AAR v. Tiger Global International II Holdings [2026] 182 taxmann.com 375 (SC).
5.5. ESI & PF Contribution.[S.29(1)(e)] [Clause 31]
Section 29(1)(e) of the Income-tax Act, 2025 allows for the deduction of any amount of contribution received by the employer (being the assessee) from the employee, if such amount is credited to the employee’s account within the due date.
The controversy on the interpretation of what the due date is persisted in the old Act as well. Several High Courts took a view that the due date is the due date of filing of the return under the scheme of Income Tax.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2022] 448 ITR 518 (SC) held that For assessment years prior to 2021-22, non obstante clause under section 43B of the Old Act could not apply in case of amounts which were held in trust as was case of employee’s contribution which were deducted from their income and was held in trust by assessee-employer as per section 2(24)(x) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 , thus, said clause would not absolve assessee-employer from its liability to deposit employee’s contribution on or before due date as per the welfare statute as a condition for deduction.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Woodland (Aero Club) (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT SLP 1532 of 2026 dated January 27, 2026 (SC) has issued notice on examining the deduction under section 43B of the Act on the Old Act.
It has been proposed that any amount of contribution received from employee by the employer (being the assessee), towards any approved provident fund, superannuation fund or any fund set up under ESI Act shall be allowed as deduction if such amount is credited to the relevant fund, on or before the due date of filing of return of income under section 263(1) of the New Act which is applicable for the employer.(Clause 57)
This is a welcome amendment. It is advisable to extend this amendment to the Income tax Act, 1961 as it would further reduce pending litigations.
5.6. Foreign Assets of Small Taxpayers – Disclosure Scheme 2026. [Section 49 & 50 of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition Act, 2015 (Black Money Act).
The Scheme provides a one-time opportunity to eligible taxpayers to disclose specified foreign income and assets either not taxed or not reported in the return of income, on payment of tax or fee, with immunity from further tax, penalty and prosecution under the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015.
For “undisclosed assets located outside India” or “undisclosed foreign income”, the Scheme applies where the aggregate value does not exceed ` 1 Crore as on 31st March 2026. For foreign assets acquired from disclosed income or during status as a non-resident, the value of the asset must not exceed ` 5 Crore as on 31st March 2026.
The declarant is required to pay tax at the rate of 30 per cent of the value of the undisclosed foreign asset as on 31 March 2026 or of the undisclosed foreign income, as the case may be, together with an additional amount equal to 100 per cent of such tax. The total amount payable will be 60% of the value of the asset or foreign income, as the case may be. Where the foreign asset was acquired during non-resident status or from income already offered to tax in India but was not disclosed in the relevant return schedules, a flat fee of ` 1 Lakh is payable, subject to the value threshold. If the asset is the same, then only one time fee would be chargeable and would be applicable for the first year of non-disclosure. Thereafter, it would be deemed that the asset remains disclosed. However, if there are assets that were acquired in multiple years, then the fee would be chargeable for the corresponding first years when the asset was undisclosed.
5.7. Stay of Demand.
Taxpayers can now obtain a stay of demand on an order under appeal by paying 10 per cent of the disputed amount, down from the previous requirement of 20 per cent as per the CBDT Office Memorandum [F. No. 404/72/93-ITCC] dated July 31, 2017.
This is a welcome amendment as the rate of deposit will reduce the cash flow crunch in MSMEs and small businesses. However, a Circular or
5.8. Retrospective amendments.[Income-tax Act, 1961, S.144C, 147A, 148, 148A, 153B, 292BA, Income-tax Act, 2025, S. 279, 522] (Clauses 7, 8, 9, 10, 26, 62, 106)
There have been 4 retrospective amendments which are clarificatory in nature, addressing the much-litigated issues viz. (i) Document Identification number (DIN), (ii) Faceless Assessing Officer v. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, (iii) Time-limit for completion of assessment under section 144C of the Old Act and (iv) The manner of computation of sixty days for passing the order by the Transfer Pricing Officer.
These are highly litigated issues with a huge number of cases pending at various stages of litigation. However, there was no Supreme Court decision on any of these issues.
This amendment is clarificatory in nature, and as per the interpretation of statutes, clarificatory amendments are retrospective in nature. Even otherwise, the legislature has the power to introduce retrospective amendments as it is not violative of any Fundamental right guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution of India, nor does the provision infringe or is ultra vires any other provision of the Constitution.
- Role of Tax Practitioners.
As noted by the Chairman of the CBDT, as of February 2026 more than 88 per cent of assessees have opted for the new tax regime. As per paper report only 1% of tax returns are selected for scrutiny 99% accepted on trust. With the advent of the faceless assessment system, the importance of professional assistance has increased significantly. In such a regime, it is only those professionals who are well-versed in law and procedure who can effectively represent taxpayers and make meaningful submissions before the tax authorities.
In practice, we have observed that a large number of co-operative societies in Mumbai either fail to claim the deduction available under section 80P of the Act, or where such deductions are claimed, they are often disallowed at the processing stage. Unfortunately, in many cases, no timely remedial action is taken. As a result, appeals are filed belatedly, and in several matters, the delay extends for years. This is largely due to a lack of awareness of the applicable legal provisions and procedural requirements.
Tax practitioners, equipped with the necessary expertise, play a crucial role in guiding assessees to secure the deductions and reliefs legitimately available under the law and in ensuring that appropriate remedies are pursued within prescribed timelines.
Equally important is the contribution of voluntary professional organisations such as the AIFTP, BCAS, and the Chamber of Tax Consultants. These bodies regularly organise study circles, training programmes, and professional development courses to better equip their members. They also provide constructive suggestions from time to time for improving tax legislation and administration.
To achieve the national vision of “Viksit Bharat 2047”, these organisations can join hands to undertake focused research on key issues affecting taxpayers and the tax system. For instance, two important subjects deserving immediate attention could be:
- Measures to reduce tax litigation, and
- Rationalisation of prosecution proceedings that have remained pending for decades.
There are several other practical subjects of day-to-day importance that could also be studied. Such initiatives would be a valuable service to the nation, and it is hoped that the Government will consider these suggestions in an objective and constructive manner.
- Conclusion.
The AIFTP has always played an active role in advocating for fair tax administration. It may be recalled that the Federation had filed a Public Interest Litigation before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the steep increase in fees for filing appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. At that time, the then Chief Justice, Hon’ble Justice Mr. S.H. Kapadia, requested withdrawal of the petition on the ground that when trade associations were not opposing the increase, it was difficult to appreciate how Tax Practitioners alone were affected.
This episode highlights the need for collective support from trade and professional bodies alike in matters concerning better law, better administration, and access to justice. It is sincerely hoped that trade associations will actively support such causes in the larger interest of taxpayers and the nation.
[Source : AIFTP Journal February 2026 Volume 28 No. 11]
