India taxes crypto but has no law deciding who regulates it
What happened
India levies a 30% tax on crypto gains and routes exchanges through FIU registration, yet no legislation defines whether SEBI, RBI, or a new body holds regulatory authority over virtual digital assets. Multiple agencies claim partial jurisdiction — RBI over payment risks, SEBI over securities-like tokens, ED under FEMA and PMLA — but no unified framework exists. The Inter-Ministerial Committee and successive consultation rounds have not produced a Crypto Bill, leaving exchanges operating under fragmented, overlapping oversight.
Why it matters
India's crypto governance gap is a structural problem, not merely a legislative delay. Three agencies assert partial authority without a master statute to resolve conflicts.
RBI treats crypto as a monetary and financial-stability risk. Its 2018 circular banning bank dealings with crypto exchanges was struck down by the Supreme Court in Internet and Mobile Association of India v. RBI (2020), but RBI's hostility to private cryptocurrencies remains explicit in annual reports and governor statements.
SEBI's interest is triggered when a token resembles a security or derivative. Post the 2023 global push following FTX's collapse, SEBI submitted to the Finance Ministry that it could regulate crypto assets that behave like securities, while a separate regulator handles commodity-like tokens.
The Enforcement Directorate and Financial Intelligence Unit operate under PMLA and FEMA. Since 2023, Virtual Asset Service Providers (VASPs) must register with FIU-IND — this is currently the only mandatory compliance gate for exchanges operating in India.
The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance and the Inter-Ministerial Committee both recommended a law, but the Cryptocurrency and Regulation of Official Digital Currency Bill has not been tabled. Meanwhile, India's 30% tax on VDA gains (Section 115BBH, Finance Act 2022) and 1% TDS (Section 194S) treat crypto as property for tax purposes — without confirming its legal character.
This 'regulate-by-taxation-without-a-law' approach is precisely what competitive exams test: which body does what, under which statute, and what remains unresolved.
CBDT gives valuers and tax practitioners six more months to register under new rules
What happened
The Central Board of Direct Taxes notified the Income Tax Fourth Amendment Rules, 2026, extending the registration deadline for valuers and authorised representatives by six months. This grace period allows professionals who practice before income tax authorities — including chartered accountants, advocates, and registered valuers — more time to comply with new registration requirements. The amendment modifies the Income Tax Rules, 1962, and applies to practitioners who must register under the updated framework before beginning or continuing their practice.
Why it matters
The Income Tax Rules, 1962, are subordinate legislation framed under the Income Tax Act, 1961. CBDT, as the apex direct-tax administration body under the Finance Ministry, periodically amends these rules through gazette notifications. The Fourth Amendment Rules, 2026 address a procedural gap: under the new compliance architecture, valuers and tax practitioners are required to formally register before they can represent clients or conduct valuations in income tax proceedings.
The six-month extension matters because non-registration could otherwise invalidate their practice — affecting thousands of professionals nationwide. For valuers specifically, their role is critical in determining fair market value of assets during capital gains computation, charitable institution assessments, and international transfer pricing cases. Authorised representatives (including CAs, advocates, and company secretaries) appear before the Assessing Officer, Commissioner (Appeals), and tribunals on behalf of taxpayers.
From an exam standpoint, this amendment sits at the intersection of tax administration reform and regulatory compliance. CBDT's power to amend rules flows from Section 295 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The amendment process — gazette notification, commencement date, transition provisions — is a standard examiner testing angle. UPSC and RBI Grade B aspirants should understand how delegated legislation works: Parliament sets the principal Act, while CBDT issues rules and circulars that operationalise it. Any extension of a statutory deadline via subordinate legislation, rather than a Parliamentary amendment, illustrates the flexibility and scope of delegated rule-making in India's tax administration.
GST Council's October 7 meeting to address process reforms and digital economy taxation
What happened
Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman announced that the GST Council's October 7 meeting would focus on process reforms and the tax complexities arising from the digital economy. The Council, chaired by the FM and comprising state finance ministers, periodically revises GST rates, resolves compliance issues, and addresses emerging sectors. Digital economy taxation — covering e-commerce, platform services, and cross-border digital transactions — has grown increasingly complex and remains an evolving policy priority for the Council.
Why it matters
The GST Council is a constitutional body established under Article 279A of the Indian Constitution, inserted by the 101st Constitutional Amendment Act, 2016. It is the apex decision-making body for GST in India and operates on a cooperative federalism model. The Union Government holds one-third of the voting weight, while all states together hold two-thirds; decisions require a three-fourths majority.
Process reforms in GST typically cover simplification of return filing, e-invoicing thresholds, input tax credit (ITC) reconciliation, and anti-evasion measures. The Council has previously expanded e-invoicing applicability progressively — from businesses with turnover above ₹500 crore down to ₹5 crore.
Digital economy taxation is a globally contested area. In India, the GST framework taxes online services — both domestic platforms and foreign digital service providers supplying to Indian consumers (the OIDAR — Online Information and Database Access or Retrieval — services category). The equalisation levy, though separate from GST, also applies to digital advertising and e-commerce operators.
For exam purposes, candidates must understand that GST Council decisions are recommendatory — Parliament and state legislatures must legislate to implement them. Yet in practice, recommendations are almost always implemented, making Council meetings highly policy-significant. The intersection of digital taxation with GST is an emerging area that examiners are increasingly testing as India's digital economy expands.
