Important EPF Changes Effective November 2025: What Employees Should Know

On October 15, 2025, the Ministry of Labour and Employment released an official statement via the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO), outlining the latest reforms to the Employees’ Provident Fund (EPF) and Employees’ Pension Scheme (EPS).
These updates, approved by the Central Board of Trustees (CBT), are designed to streamline withdrawal procedures, expand digital accessibility, and speed up claim processing, while continuing to protect employees’ retirement funds.
The announcement also aimed to clarify misconceptions spreading on social media and to inform both employers and employees about the real implications of these policy changes.

🔹 Major Highlights from the EPFO Press Release

a) Streamlined EPF Withdrawal System
Previously, EPF members had to follow separate rules for different partial withdrawal purposes such as marriage, medical needs, education, or home purchase.
The new unified withdrawal framework brings all these under one simplified set of rules. It now:

• Permits withdrawals from both employee and employer contributions (including interest).

• Reduces the minimum service period to just 12 months, compared to 5–7 years earlier.

• Introduces uniform eligibility criteria across all withdrawal categories.

This integrated model eliminates the confusion caused by multiple provisions and makes the withdrawal process easier to understand and apply.

b) Access to Employer’s Contribution Made Easier
A major policy update now allows members to withdraw from the employer’s share as well, under certain approved conditions.
Eligible individuals can withdraw up to 75% of their total accumulated balance for needs such as housing, medical treatment, or during periods of unemployment.

This change provides greater financial flexibility for employees, especially in emergency situations, while still keeping a portion of funds reserved for post-retirement security.

c) Safeguards to Protect Retirement Corpus
Even with relaxed withdrawal norms, EPFO has introduced safeguards to preserve long-term savings.
Under the Employees’ Pension Scheme (EPS), the waiting period for final settlement has been increased from 2 months to 36 months after an employee leaves service.

This aims to discourage premature full withdrawals and promote a more sustainable retirement corpus.

d) Faster Claims & Digital-First Processing
EPFO’s new reforms also prioritize efficiency and technology adoption. Key enhancements include:

• Increasing the auto-settlement limit for advance claims from ₹1 lakh to ₹5 lakh.

• Streamlining claim verification with fewer documents.

• Enabling UAN and Aadhaar-based digital processing for most claims and transfers.

• Reducing reliance on employer verification, allowing direct claim handling via the EPFO portal.

Together, these initiatives aim to make EPF services faster, more transparent, and user-friendly.

e) Clarification on Social Media Rumors
The October 2025 EPFO press release also addressed misinformation circulating online about complete EPF withdrawals.
It clarified that:

• There is no general permission for full withdrawal of EPF while still employed.

• 100% withdrawal is only allowed upon retirement or under specific eligible cases.

• Members should only rely on official EPFO and Ministry notifications for authentic updates.

This clarification was issued to prevent confusion and ensure members understand the genuine scope of the new rules.

🔹  Practical Guidance & Implementation Checklist

For Employees / EPF Members

• Ensure that you have completed a minimum of 12 months of continuous employment before submitting a withdrawal request.

• Under the revised framework, both the employee and employer shares of the fund can be withdrawn, provided the conditions are met.

• Retain a sufficient balance in your EPF account to continue earning interest and to strengthen your long-term savings.

• Members covered under EPS-95 should note that final pension withdrawal can only be initiated after 36 months from the date of leaving service.

• Use your UAN-linked Aadhaar credentials for faster and smoother online claim submission and tracking.

For Employers / Establishments

• Make sure that ECR filings and monthly contributions are submitted promptly to avoid delays in employee claim processing.

• Communicate with employees about the revised withdrawal norms and associated limitations.

• Keep all employee details updated and verified on the EPFO portal, including KYC, Aadhaar, PAN, and bank information.

• Since employer contributions are now partially withdrawable, reconcile monthly contributions carefully to ensure accuracy in employee balances.

November 2025 Compliance Calendar: All GST, Income Tax & MCA Due Dates Explained

November 2025 brings a packed compliance schedule for businesses and professionals alike.
This month combines several overlapping deadlines — from GST returns and Income Tax audits to annual filings under the MCA.
To ease the pressure on taxpayers and corporates, authorities have granted notable extensions and relaxations, particularly concerning audit-related filings and MCA compliances.

🔹 1. MCA / ROC Compliances (As per Latest Relaxation)

✅ Revised Filing Deadlines
The Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) has granted an extension for submitting AOC-4, AOC-4 XBRL, AOC-4 CFS, AOC-4 NBFC (Ind AS), and MGT-7 / MGT-7A forms for FY 2024–25.
Companies can now file these forms till 31 December 2025 without incurring any additional filing fees.
This move is intended to facilitate a smoother transition to the new MCA V3 e-form system and reduce last-minute filing congestion on the portal.

⚠️ Note:
This relaxation applies only to filing fees and does not extend the AGM due date. All companies must have conducted their AGM within the prescribed period (typically by 30 September 2025). The waiver covers late fees only, not the delay in AGM itself.

📋 Professional To-Do List

• Submit all AOC and MGT forms by 31 December 2025 to utilize the relaxation.

• Make sure AGM minutes, board resolutions, and financial statements are properly finalized and signed before uploading.

• If the AGM was not held on time, guide your client to apply for condonation or file compounding as per law.

🔹2. Income Tax Due Date Extension — CBDT Circular No. 15/2025

The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has provided much-needed relief to taxpayers by extending key Income Tax compliance deadlines for the Assessment Year 2025–26.
This move comes after several professional associations and High Court interventions highlighted difficulties caused by portal issues and increased audit-reporting requirements.

✅ Revised Deadlines

The CBDT has clarified that these extensions are intended to ease compliance pressure on businesses and professionals during the busy audit season.

⚙️ Key Action Points for Practitioners

• Complete and upload Tax Audit Reports by 10 November 2025.

• File Income Tax Returns for audit cases by 10 December 2025.

• For Transfer Pricing cases, align Form 3CEB filing with the extended ITR deadline (expected 10 December 2025).

• Reconcile all figures in AIS / TIS / Form 26AS before submission to avoid mismatch or notice generation.

These extensions give professionals some breathing room — but it’s crucial to plan filings early to avoid last-minute portal congestion.

🔹3.GST Compliance Deadlines for November 2025 (Covering October Transactions)

Th.e GST compliance calendar for November 2025 follows the regular filing cycle, covering returns related to October 2025. Businesses must ensure timely submission to avoid late fees and interest.

📋 Action Points for Professionals

• Review and reconcile October invoices before filing GSTR-1.

• Match Input Tax Credit (ITC) from GSTR-2B prior to submitting GSTR-3B.

• Ensure QRMP taxpayers complete their PMT-06 payments by 25 November 2025.

• Begin early reconciliation for FY 2024–25 annual filings — GSTR-9 and GSTR-9C are due by 31 December 2025.

Bombay High Court overturns AI-generated income tax notice, terms process unjust to taxpayer

The Bombay High Court noted that the Income Tax Department had relied on artificial intelligence (AI) to cite three fabricated judicial precedents and issued a tax notice involving ₹22 crore of alleged income. Upon review, the Court observed that no such rulings actually exist and questioned how the department obtained these so-called judicial references. The Bench remarked, “In today’s age of Artificial Intelligence, there is often a tendency to trust system-generated results. However, when exercising quasi-judicial powers, such AI-generated information should never be accepted blindly but must be properly verified before use — otherwise, errors like this are bound to occur.”

Ultimately, invoking its authority under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Bombay High Court quashed the notice, remanded the matter back to the assessing officer, and directed that a fresh notice be issued with clear and specific findings. The Court further instructed that the taxpayer must be given a fair and reasonable opportunity to present their case.

Chartered Accountant (Dr.) Suresh Surana told ET Wealth Online that in this case (Writ Petition (L) No. 24366 of 2025), the taxpayer had challenged an assessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B for AY 2023–24. The Assessing Officer (AO) had raised the taxpayer’s income from ₹3.09 crore to ₹27.91 crore, issuing a consequent tax demand under Section 156 and a penalty notice under Section 274 read with Section 271AAC.

The additions were made on two grounds:
(i) Disallowance of purchases worth ₹2.16 crore from Dhanlaxmi Metal Industries on the pretext that the supplier had not replied to a Section 133(6) notice; and
(ii) An addition of ₹22.66 crore for unsecured loans from directors, calculated on a “peak balance” basis.

According to Surana, the taxpayer argued that both additions violated principles of natural justice. Evidence was produced showing that the supplier had indeed responded to the Section 133(6) notice with confirmations, invoices, e-way bills, transport details, and GST filings before the assessment was concluded. As for the unsecured loans, the taxpayer contended that no show-cause notice was issued, no computation basis was shared, and the AO relied on three fictitious judicial rulings.

Surana noted that the Bombay High Court identified major procedural flaws and a serious breach of fairness, including:
— The supplier’s confirmation was on record but ignored, while the assessment order falsely stated otherwise.
— The AO relied on three judicial citations that did not exist, showing lack of due verification despite AI use.
— No explanation or working for the “peak balance” addition was shared, denying the assessee a chance to respond.

Given these lapses, the Court ruled that the assessment order violated due process and quashed the assessment, demand, and penalty notices. It directed the AO to issue a detailed show-cause notice with clear reasoning, provide a personal hearing, and ensure that any cited judicial rulings are real and verified before being used.

Surana added that the High Court rightly exercised its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 since the case involved a complete breakdown of procedural justice, not just minor technical errors.

Mihir Tanna, Associate Director at S.K. Patodia LLP, highlighted that the ruling underscores two key principles — confirmation by third parties and the right to be heard. When a transaction’s authenticity is questioned, confirmations from the counterparty strengthen the taxpayer’s case. Likewise, denying an assessee a chance to present their explanation breaches natural justice.

How Did the Case Originate?

The matter originated when the taxpayer approached the Bombay High Court through a Writ Petition, contesting an Assessment Order issued under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated March 27, 2025, for Assessment Year 2023–24.

As per the challenged assessment, the Income Tax Department had increased the taxpayer’s total income to ₹27.91 crore, as opposed to ₹3.09 crore originally reported in his Income Tax Return (ITR). Alongside, the Notice of Demand issued under Section 156 was also disputed in the petition.

Upon examining the assessment order, the High Court observed that the tax officer had made two major income additions. The first was a disallowance of purchases worth ₹2.15 crore from a supplier company on the grounds that it had failed to respond to a Notice under Section 133(6). The second addition related to unsecured loans from directors, where a peak balance of ₹22.66 crore was added to the taxpayer’s income.

The Court remarked, “Even the opening balance was taken into account while making this addition, and to justify it, reliance was placed on certain judicial rulings.”

Bombay HC Rules Assessment Order Unjust: Natural Justice Overlooked

The Bombay High Court observed that after carefully examining the documents and hearing both sides, it became evident that the Assessment Order had been issued in clear violation of the principles of natural justice.

Regarding the first income addition, the Court noted that the tax authorities proceeded without considering the supplier’s reply to the Notice issued under Section 133(6). The taxpayer had attached, on page 568 of the petition, a copy of the notice dated March 4, 2025, addressed to the supplier, asking for detailed information to be furnished by March 5, 2025.

The Court further stated: “The concerned supplier submitted a detailed response on March 8, 2025, which can be found at page 571 of the petition. In that reply, the supplier not only confirmed the transaction but also submitted supporting evidence such as invoices, e-way bills, transport receipts, and GST returns. This response, along with the enclosures, spanned nearly 100 pages.”

The High Court emphasized that this reply was available well before the disputed assessment order was finalized.

The bench remarked: “It is clear that this crucial piece of evidence, though present on record, was ignored by the assessing officer. The order even stated that ‘no such reply was filed.’ In the department’s affidavit-in-reply, an apology has now been offered for the oversight.”

Bombay HC Warns Tax Department Against Blind Reliance on AI

The Bombay High Court, while examining the second issue regarding the addition of peak balances on loans from directors, observed that the tax officer had included the opening balance while computing the peak balance. To justify this, the officer relied upon three judicial decisions.

However, the Court pointed out that these cited rulings were entirely fictitious and had no existence. It questioned the tax department on how such references were obtained. The Court remarked: “In this age of Artificial Intelligence (AI), officials tend to depend heavily on the results produced by such systems. Yet, when performing quasi-judicial duties, one must not rely blindly on AI outputs. Each result should be properly verified before being used, or errors like this will occur.”

The Court further noted that the taxpayer had been left completely unaware of how the figures for the additions were determined. No workings, basis, or show-cause notice had been shared with the petitioner before finalizing the addition of peak balances.

The Bombay High Court concluded: “The taxpayer’s grievance in this regard is absolutely justified.”

Bombay High Court’s Final Verdict

The Bombay High Court concluded that, given the specific circumstances of this case, it would be inappropriate to direct the petitioner to pursue alternate legal remedies. The Court held that this was a suitable matter for exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Accordingly, the Court set aside and annulled the Assessment Order issued under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act dated March 27, 2025, for AY 2023–24. It also quashed the related Notice of Demand under Section 156 and the Show-Cause Notice for penalty under Section 274 read with Section 271AAC, both dated March 27, 2025.

The matter has been remanded to the Assessing Officer (AO) with clear directions to issue a fresh show-cause notice, explicitly mentioning the basis of any proposed additions or disallowances. The AO must provide the taxpayer with a fair opportunity to respond, adequate time to file a written reply, and a personal hearing before issuing the final assessment. If the department intends to rely on any judicial precedents, such references must be communicated to the petitioner at least seven days in advance. The fresh order should be a well-reasoned speaking order addressing every contention raised by the taxpayer and must be completed by December 31, 2025.

The Court further clarified that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the income additions or disallowances made earlier, and all rights and arguments of both parties remain preserved.

Finally, the writ petition was disposed of in these terms, with no order as to costs. The judgment will bear a digitally signed copy from the Private Secretary or Personal Assistant of the Court, and parties may act upon an authenticated digital version transmitted via email or fax.

GST Registration: Required Documents Guide

Introduction

Getting your business registered under GST is one of the first steps toward becoming a compliant and recognized enterprise in India. Whether you’re starting a new venture, expanding operations across states, or selling through e-commerce platforms, GST registration provides you with a unique identification number (GSTIN) to legally collect and remit taxes.

To make the process hassle-free, it’s important to know exactly which documents are required before you apply. Below is a complete list of documents you’ll need for GST registration based on your business type.

🔹 1. Basic Documents Required for All Applicants

Regardless of the business type, the following documents are mandatory for GST registration:

🔹 2. Proof of Business Place

The document required for business address proof depends on the nature of property ownership:

🔹 3. Business Type-Wise Documents

🔹 4. Additional Documents (If Applicable)

🔹 5. Aadhaar Authentication (Mandatory Since 2020)

• Aadhaar authentication is mandatory for all individuals such as proprietors, partners, or directors.

• It enables fast-track approval within 3 working days under the simplified registration process (Rule 8 & 9).

• Failure to authenticate Aadhaar may lead to physical verification of business premises by the department.

🔹 6. Document Upload Guidelines

📂 Accepted Formats: Upload files only in PDF or JPEG format. Each file should not exceed 1 MB.
🧾 Clarity Matters: Make sure all scanned copies are readable and details are visible without blur or shadow.
🪪 Name Consistency: The name on your uploaded documents must match exactly with the name on your PAN and Aadhaar records.
💡 Utility Proof Validity: Upload a recent utility bill (issued within the last 2 months) for address verification.
🏷️ Business Name Accuracy: Ensure your trade name or business name matches your PAN registration. If different, specify clearly in the application.
🔐 Digital Verification: Use the Digital Signature Certificate (DSC) or EVC OTP carefully during submission to avoid rejection.