India's BIG move! Bans Pakistani ships from ports to ‘ensure safety of assets' in aftermath of Pahalgam attack
The Centre on Saturday banned all ships bearing the flag of Pakistan from entering any Indian port amid escalating tensions between the two countries after the horrifying Pahalgam terror attack on April 22.
In an order, the Union Ministry of Ports, Shipping and Waterways also said an Indian ship will also not visit any Pakistani port.
This comes hours after India banned all imports from Pakistan.
'A ship bearing the flag of Pakistan shall not be allowed to visit any Indian Port,' said the order.
'An Indian flag ship shall not visit any Ports of Pakistan.'
(This is a developing story. Check back for updates)
First Published: 3 May 2025, 02:28 PM IST
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
30 minutes ago
- Time of India
How to save tax on your Bitcoin investments in India, legally!
A way through the harsh tax reality of Bitcoin trading in India: Live Events Bitcoin ETFs: The Smart, Tax-Optimized, Regulated Choice Why do we look at Bitcoin as a risky alternative? Bitcoin ETF: The smarter choice for you! (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our ETMarkets WhatsApp channel Indian investors have enjoyed massive gains in Bitcoin , up by over 123% in the past year and currently trading at near ₹1 crore, yet they're burdened by a harsh tax regime. A 30% flat tax, 1% TDS on each trade, and a blanket disallowance of loss set-off have made direct crypto investing punitive and this, there is always a way through the tedious tax regime: there is a smarter, tax-efficient and legal way to invest in current Indian tax rules, profits from Bitcoin trading are taxed at a flat 30% rate, plus a surcharge and a 4% cess. Every trade is subject to 1% TDS, irrespective of profit or loss. Worse still, losses can't be set off against any income, not even other crypto gains, and cannot be carried forward to future tax is one even supposed to make a profit under this regime? This makes us feel like it's less of a tax law and more like a daylight robbery. This means even a prudent, long-term investor is treated like a high-frequency gambler. No tax efficiency, no loss planning, and no differentiation between long-term holding and speculative legal and strategic alternative? Bitcoin ETFs. These are listed exchange-traded funds that track Bitcoin's price but are treated differently under Indian tax direct investments in Bitcoin, which are classified as Virtual Digital Assets (VDAs), Bitcoin ETFs, structured as units of foreign mutual funds, enjoy a favourable classification. If held for over 24 months, gains are taxed as long-term capital gains at just 12.5%, far more investor-friendly than the 30% on VDAs. If sold earlier, short-term gains are taxed at your regular income huge advantage: no 1% TDS. Bitcoin ETF transactions don't suffer from liquidity erosion like direct crypto trades do. Plus, losses from ETF investments can be set off against other capital gains and can also be carried forward to future years, something completely disallowed in direct Bitcoin investing under the current VDA regime as of now. For HNIs and serious investors, this structure can mean up to 60% in tax savings while keeping investments regulated and some platforms offer INR-settled Bitcoin futures, these instruments often operate in regulatory grey zones. They fall outside India's VDA definition but remain unregulated by SEBI, with no investor protection or the collapse of exchanges like Vauld and the ongoing restructuring of WazirX, both Indian exchanges now in Singapore courts, highlight the dangers of trusting unregulated platforms. WazirX's alleged claim that ₹5,000 crore of investor funds are actually company-owned while shielding itself under Singapore law shows how Indian investors are left with no local these platforms pose full counterparty risk. Unlike NSE/BSE derivatives offerings, which have clearing corporations and capital adequacy rules, crypto futures platforms rely entirely on internal solvency, thereby remaining unchecked, unaudited, and the supposed tax advantage is unreliable. Frequent crypto futures trading can attract business income classification, leading to the applicability of a significant compliance short, Bitcoin futures may offer a loophole, but they come at the cost of investor safety, regulatory compliance, and long-term viability. Bitcoin ETFs are unquestionably the better option for traders to invest in, while Bitcoin still carries remaining Indian investors looking to grow their wealth in a compliant, tax-efficient, and secure manner, Bitcoin ETFs offer the ideal solution. They combine the upside of digital assets with the structure and investor protections of traditional finance. Compared to direct crypto trading, Bitcoin ETFs allow investors to save up to 60% in taxes, avoid the 1% TDS, and claim loss set-off and carry-forward, benefits denied under the current VDA tax are platforms through which, Indian investors can now access US-listed Bitcoin ETFs via regulated brokers and GIFT City-compliant structures. In an environment of tightening regulations and ongoing failures of unregulated platforms, ETFs are not just a safer route; they're the only logical path forward.(The article is written by Srinivas L., CEO of 9Point Capital.): Recommendations, suggestions, views and opinions given by the experts are their own. These do not represent the views of the Economic Times)
Economic Times
30 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Shein and Reliance aim to sell India-made clothes abroad within a year, sources say
Fashion retailer Shein and partner Reliance Retail plan to rapidly expand their Indian supplier base and start overseas sales of India-made Shein-branded clothes within six to 12 months, said two people with knowledge of the matter. ADVERTISEMENT The China-founded, Singapore-headquartered e-commerce firm has been discussing plans with the Indian retailer since before the U.S. imposed tariffs on Chinese imports that intensified the need to diversify sourcing, the people said. The aim is to raise Indian suppliers to 1,000 from 150 within a year, they said. In a statement to Reuters, Shein said it licensed its brand for use in India. Reliance did not respond to queries. Shein sells low-priced apparel such as $5 dresses and $10 jeans shipped directly from 7,000 suppliers in China to customers in around 150 countries. Its biggest market is the U.S. where it is adjusting to tariffs on low-value e-commerce packages from China which were previously imported duty free. The retailer launched in India in 2018 but its app was banned in 2020 as part of government action against China-linked firms amid border tension with its northeastern neighbour. It returned in February under a licensing deal with the Reliance Industries unit which launched selling Shein-branded clothes produced in local factories. In contrast, Shein's other websites mainly list goods from China. ADVERTISEMENT Reliance, controlled by Asia's richest person, Mukesh Ambani, has contracted 150 garment manufacturers and is in discussion with 400 more, said the two people, declining to be identified due to confidentiality concerns. The goal is 1,000 Indian factories making Shein-branded clothes within a year for both the Indian market and to service some of Shein's global websites, the people said. ADVERTISEMENT Shein initially wants to list India-made clothes on its U.S. and British websites, one of the people said. Discussions have been ongoing for months and the launch time of six to 12 months could change depending on supplier numbers, the person said. The scale of supplier expansion and export time frame is reported here for the first time. ADVERTISEMENT Shein has licensed its brand for domestic use to Reliance which "is responsible for manufacturing, supply chain, sales and operations in the Indian market," Shein said in a statement. In December, Minister of Commerce and Industry Piyush Goyal told parliament that the Shein-Reliance partnership aimed to create a network of Indian suppliers of Shein-branded clothes for sale "domestically and globally". ADVERTISEMENT Shein is a fast-fashion behemoth earning annual revenue of over $30 billion through low prices and aggressive marketing. Most of its products are from China with some made in countries such as Turkey and Brazil. Its expansion in India mirrors interest in the country from the likes of Walmart and others throughout the global fashion and retail industries, particularly those looking for suppliers outside China due to the Sino-U.S. trade war. The Shein India app has been downloaded 2.7 million times across Apple and Google Play stores, averaging 120% on-month growth, showed data from market intelligence firm Sensor Tower. Offerings during its first four months have reached 12,000 designs, a fraction of the 600,000 products on its U.S. site. In the women's dresses category, its cheapest item is priced 349 Indian rupees ($4) versus $3.39 on the U.S. site as of June 9. Shein's Indian partner Reliance, which operates the app, is working with suppliers to assess whether they can replicate Shein's global best-sellers at lower cost, the two people said. Reliance aims to emulate Shein's on-demand manufacturing model, asking suppliers to make as few as 100 pieces per design before increasing production of those that sell well, they said. Executives from Reliance recently visited China to understand Shein's "innovative" supply chain operations, "data driven" design processes and "disruptive" digital marketing, Manish Aziz, assistant vice president Shein India at Reliance Retail, said in a LinkedIn post in which he called Shein's scale and speed "truly incredible". The partnership is one of dozens Reliance has with fashion brands, such as Brooks Brothers and Marks and Spencer. The firm also runs e-commerce site Ajio and its retail network competes with Amazon and Walmart's Flipkart as well as value retailers such as Tata's Zudio. Reliance plans to work with new suppliers to source fabric - especially fabric made using synthetic fibres where India lacks expertise - and import required machinery, the people said. The firm will invest in suppliers and help them grow which in turn will help the Shein-Reliance partnership go global, they said. (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel)
Hindustan Times
33 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
SC rejects urgent hearing in Tamil Nadu's plea against Centre over edu funds
The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a plea by the Tamil Nadu government seeking an urgent hearing in its suit against the Union government for allegedly withholding over ₹2,000 crore in funds under the Samagra Shiksha Scheme (SSS). The Tamil Nadu government had described the Centre's move as 'coercive tactics' to force the state to implement the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020. 'For how long has this fund not been given? What is the urgency now?' a bench of justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Manmohan asked senior advocate P Wilson, who mentioned the matter on behalf of the Tamil Nadu government, seeking an expedited listing. As Wilson flagged the constitutional right to free and compulsory education of nearly 48 lakh students in the state being adversely impacted due to the withholding of the fund, the bench remained unconvinced and declined the request, saying: 'The plea is rejected.' The brief exchange took place during the Supreme Court's ongoing summer recess, now designated as a period of 'partial court working days' where only two to three benches sit and only matters of pressing urgency are usually considered, in addition to some old cases where both sides have given their consent to argue during the break. The regular functioning of the top court will resume on July 14. Filed under Article 131 of the Constitution, Tamil Nadu's suit accuses the Centre of linking its annual share under the SSS to the implementation of the NEP 2020 and the PM SHRI Schools Scheme -- a condition the state calls 'unconstitutional, arbitrary and coercive.' According to the suit, the Project Approval Board had approved a total outlay of ₹3,585.99 crore for Tamil Nadu under SSS for the financial year 2024–25, of which ₹2,151.59 crore was to be the Centre's 60% share. The state claims this amount was not released solely because of its principled opposition to NEP 2020. Tamil Nadu, ruled by the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), has been a vocal critic of the NEP, particularly its three-language formula, which the state believes undermines its two-language policy rooted in Tamil linguistic pride and regional identity. 'The Union Government seeks to coerce the State to implement the NEP-2020 throughout the State in its entirety and to deviate from the education regime followed in the State,' the suit submitted, while asserting that SSS is a standalone scheme that should not be tied to compliance with any other policy. The suit further alleged that the withholding of funds 'cripples the implementation of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009,' directly impacting 43.9 lakh students, 2.2 lakh teachers, and over 32,000 school staff in the state. The state's legal team has argued that the Centre's move violates the spirit of cooperative federalism and amounts to an 'usurpation' of the state's constitutional powers to legislate on education, which falls under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List. Tamil Nadu has also urged the Supreme Court to declare that the implementation of NEP and the PM SHRI Schools Scheme, which mandates full compliance with NEP, is not binding on the state. It has sought a direction to the Centre to immediately release ₹2,291 crore (including interest), claiming the delay is 'not only illegal but also violative of constitutional morality.' While the plea for an urgent hearing has now been declined, the main suit continues to be listed for regular hearing. The standoff comes amid a broader constitutional tussle between the Tamil Nadu government and the Union government. On April 8, the Supreme Court struck down Tamil Nadu governor RN Ravi's controversial move to reserve 10 re-enacted state bills for presidential assent, and the matter is now part of a presidential reference pending before the top court.
