https://www.taxtmi.com/article/detailed?id=10270 The Finance Bill proposes an explanatory insertion to section 40(a)(ii) deeming surcharge and cess to be "tax" for purposes of disallowance, applied retrospectively; the author contends this is not a true clarification of legislative intent because cesses are computed on income-tax rather than on profits or gains, and argues that retrospective deeming will disrupt taxpayer reliance, hinder practical enforcement given limits on revision and reassessment, create arbitrary disparities among taxpayers, and impose disproportionate litigation and compliance costs, so the amendment should be withdrawn or made prospective only. en-us Mon, 14 Feb 2022 20:39:57 +0530 Mon, 14 Feb 2022 20:39:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/article/detailed?id=10270 The Finance Bill proposes an explanatory insertion to section 40(a)(ii) deeming surcharge and cess to be "tax" for purposes of disallowance, applied retrospectively; the author contends this is not a true clarification of legislative intent because cesses are computed on income-tax rather than on profits or gains, and argues that retrospective deeming will disrupt taxpayer reliance, hinder practical enforcement given limits on revision and reassessment, create arbitrary disparities among taxpayers, and impose disproportionate litigation and compliance costs, so the amendment should be withdrawn or made prospective only. Articles Other Topics Mon, 14 Feb 2022 20:39:57 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/article/detailed?id=10270