Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 TMI Notes - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ----
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
    competitive taxation structure for shipping companies : Clause 228(14) and (15) of the Income Tax Bi...
    Simplified and concessionary method of taxation based on the net tonnage of qualifying ships, rather...
    computation of tonnage income where ships are jointly operated or where multiple companies are invol...
    Computation of Taxable income of the shipping companies based on Tonnage: Clause 227(1)-(6) of the I...
    Comprehensive Review of the Tonnage Tax Scheme : Clause 226(7) of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Sect...
    Presumptive Taxation for Shipping Companies : Clause 226(2)-(6) of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 and Sec...
    Examination of "Qualifying Ship" : Clause 235(i) of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 115VD of t...
    Defining the Qualifying Company under India's Tonnage Tax Regime : Clause 235(h) of the Income Tax B...
    Continuity and Change in India's Tonnage Tax Regime : Clause 226(1) of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs....
    Navigating Special Tax Regimes for Shipping : Clause 225 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 11...
    Interpreting Special Provisions for Shipping Companies : Clause 235 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs....
    Special Tax Regimes for Investment Funds : Clause 224 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 115UB of ...
    special taxation regime for business trusts such as (REITs)/(InvITs) Clause 223 of the Income Tax Bi...
    Special Provisions Relating to Pass-Through Entities in Venture Capital Structures : Clause 222 of I...
    Enforcement and Recovery of Tax on Accreted Income : Clause 352(8) & (9) of the Income Tax Bill, 202...
    Changing Landscape of Interest on Delayed Payment of Tax on Accreted Income : Clause 352(7) of Incom...
    Reforming the Exit Tax Regime for non-profit organizations (NPOs) or charitable institutions : Claus...
    Comprehensive Review of Taxation, Reporting, and Compliance for Securitisation Trusts : Clause 221 o...
    Definitions, Scope, and Impact on the MAT/AMT Regime : Clause 206(19) of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 V...
    Reducing tax avoidance by curbing the excessive use of deductions and exemptions by corporate and se...
❯❯
MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

    +

    Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

    NOTE:

    Notes
    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
    Results Found:
    Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Allocation of shared costs and depreciation: apportionment on reasonable basis and fair proportion affects tonnage tax computations.
    Clause 228(14) requires common costs attributable to the tonnage tax business to be allocated on a reasonable basis, with taxpayers maintaining records to support apportionment. Clause 228(15) requires depreciation for assets other than qualifying ships to be apportioned on a fair proportion determined by the Assessing Officer with reference to actual use. Both provisions mirror Section 115VJ, vesting discretion in the AO and preserving the objective of preventing tax arbitrage while increasing documentation and compliance burdens.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Tonnage tax regime: clarifies qualifying shipping income, market value inter company valuation, and related party anti avoidance adjustments.
    Tonnage tax applies to qualifying shipping income measured by net tonnage, defined as profits from specified core shipping activities and prescribed incidental activities; incidental income above a prescribed threshold is excluded. Inter business transfers must be computed at market value, with assessing officer power to use reasonable bases in exceptional cases. Related party arrangements producing more than ordinary profits may be adjusted to reasonable levels. The Central Government may exclude activities or set limits by notification subject to parliamentary laying. Losses in tonnage computation are ignored.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Allocation of tonnage income: proportional or independent computation affects tax treatment of jointly operated qualifying ships.
    Computation of tonnage income for jointly operated qualifying ships follows a two-step approach: where participating companies' shares are definite and ascertainable, income is allocated proportionately to each company; where shares are not definite and ascertainable, tonnage income for each operator is computed as if it were the sole operator. The rule aligns taxation with economic interest, creates documentary and compliance incentives, functions as an anti-avoidance measure, and may interact with cross-border tax rules, requiring clearer guidance on "definite and ascertainable" shares and documentation standards.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Tonnage tax regime: ships' taxable income computed by daily tonnage rates and aggregation, excluding deductions.
    Clause 227(1)-(6) prescribes a ship wise tonnage tax: each qualifying ship's tonnage income equals its daily tonnage income multiplied by qualifying days, with daily rates set by a four tier slab linked to certified net tonnage. Tonnage includes certified physical tonnage and prescribed deemed tonnage for slot and sharing arrangements, rounded to the nearest hundred tons. A non obstante clause bars any deductions or set offs, making the computed tonnage income the exclusive tax base under the Part.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Tonnage tax scheme: deemed tonnage income treated as business profits, excluding actual shipping income under eligibility conditions.
    Clause 226(7) mandates that tonnage income be computed under a separate formulaic provision and be deemed to be the profits chargeable under business income, while expressly excluding the actual "relevant shipping income" from tax once the tonnage computation applies; these effects are conditional on compliance with the Part's eligibility, option, separation, and record keeping requirements.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Tonnage tax scheme: elective presumptive taxation for shipping income, requiring separate accounting and exclusive computation under qualifying criteria.
    The tonnage tax scheme is an elective presumptive regime requiring eligible companies operating qualifying ships to compute profits from that business exclusively under the tonnage basis; the tonnage tax business is treated as a separate business with independent computation and accounting, and companies not opting or ineligible must compute shipping profits under the normal provisions of the Act.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Qualifying ship definition governs tonnage tax eligibility by tying registration, certification, and operational use to tax benefit access.
    The definition of qualifying ship in Clause 235(i) requires three operative conditions for tonnage tax eligibility: a minimum net tonnage, registration under the relevant shipping statute or an authorised foreign licence, and a valid certificate evidencing net tonnage. It lists explicit exclusions-vessels providing services normally provided on land, fishing vessels, factory ships, pleasure crafts, harbour and river ferries, offshore installations-and disqualifies vessels used for fishing beyond a specified threshold in a tax year, anchoring eligibility in maritime regulatory certification and operational use.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Place of effective management central to qualifying company status, restricting tonnage tax benefits to genuinely India-managed shipping firms.
    The qualifying company for the tonnage tax regime must satisfy four cumulative conditions: be an Indian company; have its place of effective management in India-defined to include decisions made by executives as well as the board; own at least one qualifying ship; and have its main object as operating ships. Clause 235(h) consolidates these criteria within a broader definitional framework and references updated maritime legislation to clarify eligibility and reduce interpretive disputes.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Tonnage tax eligibility defined by operation status: owners and charterers qualify, long term bareboat lessors excluded.
    Clause 226(1) treats a company as operating a ship or inland vessel if it owns or charters a vessel, including partial charters such as slot, space, or joint charters, and excludes companies that have chartered out vessels on bareboat charter or bareboat charter cum demise terms for periods exceeding three years, thereby distinguishing operational risk bearing operators from passive, long term financiers for purposes of the tonnage tax scheme.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Tonnage tax regime: option to compute shipping income on a tonnage basis with deeming treatment as business profits.
    Clause 225 creates a self-contained tonnage tax regime for companies operating qualifying ships, allowing an option to compute income under its Part with a deeming provision treating that income as profits and gains of business; key operational questions concern the definition of qualifying ships, the option's exercise and lock-in mechanics, and interaction with loss set-off, allowances, and other tax measures.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Tonnage tax definitions: expanded, self-contained eligibility rules broaden coverage and tighten residency and exclusion tests.
    Clause 235 consolidates and expands tonnage tax definitions by explicitly including inland vessels, embedding a detailed qualifying company test requiring Indian residency, ownership of qualifying ships, principal shipping business, and a specified place of effective management; it also defines qualifying ship with tonnage, registration/licensing and certification requirements and enumerated exclusions to prevent abuse.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Pass-through taxation preserves investor-level tax treatment of investment fund income while ring-fencing fund-level losses.
    Clause 224 restates a pass-through regime: income from investments in a regulated fund is taxed in the hands of unit holders as if held directly, while business income remains taxable at the fund level. Business losses are ring fenced at the fund; other losses pass through subject to holding period conditions and transitional attribution of legacy losses to unit holders. Income retained by the fund is deemed credited to unit holders at year end and prescribed statements must be furnished to unit holders and tax authorities to secure transparency and enforcement.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Pass-through taxation for business trusts preserves income character and shifts tax consequences to unit holders with reporting duties.
    The clause establishes a statutory pass-through mechanism under which income distributed by business trusts is deemed to retain its original character and proportion in the hands of unit holders, while subjecting the trust's total income to tax at the maximum marginal rate subject to specified withholding provisions; it also deems certain scheduled categories of distributed income taxable on distribution, carves out specified statutory exceptions, and imposes prescribed reporting obligations on payers to unit holders and tax authorities.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Pass-through taxation of venture capital income taxes investors as if invested directly, with reporting and deemed-credit safeguards.
    Pass-through taxation requires that income arising to investors from venture capital companies or funds be taxed in the investor's hands as if invested directly, with the fund and payer furnishing prescribed statements to investors and tax authorities; undistributed income is deemed credited to investors at year-end in proportion to entitlement, while income already included on an accrual basis is not taxed again on actual payment; specified investment funds are excluded and key terms are defined in the schedule.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Tax on accreted income: transferees and officers may be deemed assessees in default, with liability limited to asset value.
    Clause 352(8) deems the specified person (NPO) and its principal officer or trustee to be assessee in default for unpaid tax on accreted income and applies all recovery provisions of the Act; it also deems a transferee of assets in specified dissolution cases to be an assessee in default in respect of such tax. Clause 352(9) limits the transferee's liability to the extent the asset received is capable of meeting the liability, ensuring proportionality in recovery.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Accreted income interest compels prompt tax payment and creates joint personal liability for trustees and principal officers.
    Clause 352(7) imposes simple interest for delayed payment of tax on accreted income, with joint and several liability on the specified person and the principal officer or trustee; interest is computed monthly (any part-month treated as a full month) using an explicit formula, and liable persons are deemed assessee in default to enable statutory recovery mechanisms.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Exit tax on accreted income expands triggers and fixes final levy after prescribed valuation and procedural safeguards.
    A tax on accreted income charges NPOs additional income tax at the maximum marginal rate when specified events occur; accreted income equals aggregate fair market value of assets less total liabilities on a specified date, computed under prescribed valuation methods, with exclusions as prescribed. The Assessing Officer must afford a hearing before ordering tax, the bill sets a detailed table of triggering events and payment timelines, and the tax payment is final with no further credit or deduction allowed.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Pass-through taxation for securitisation trust income preserves investor-level taxation while mandating reporting and deemed-accrual rules.
    Clause 221 establishes a pass-through taxation regime for income from securitisation trusts, preserving the character and proportion of underlying income in the hands of investors, deeming unpaid accruals as credited on the last day of the tax year to prevent deferral, requiring prescribed statements to investors and tax authorities, and preventing double taxation by excluding income already taxed on accrual from subsequent inclusion on actual payment.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Minimum alternate tax definitions shape MAT/AMT computation and Ind AS transition treatment, narrowing tax arbitrage opportunities.
    Clause 206(19) supplies granular definitions aligning MAT/AMT computation with Ind AS convergence, insolvency law and cross statutory terms. Key terms include adjudicating authority (IBC), convergence date, transition amount with specified exclusions, net worth, company classifications, securities, tribunal, unit (IFSC) and year of convergence. These definitions phase in Ind AS transition impacts, harmonize tax and insolvency treatment, clarify eligibility for concessional AMT rates, and reduce tax arbitrage and interpretive disputes compared with the narrower definitions in Section 115JF.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Minimum alternate tax exclusions: narrow MAT/AMT to specified taxpayers including life insurers, alternative regime opters, presumptive and small taxpayers.
    Clause 206(18) narrows MAT/AMT applicability by exempting companies with life insurance income, taxpayers who opt for specified alternative tax regimes, persons taxed under special or presumptive computation sections, specified funds identified in the Schedule, and non corporate persons whose adjusted total income falls below the statutory threshold; the exclusions reflect sectoral accounting differences, aim to promote concessional regimes and financial competitiveness, and reduce compliance burdens while requiring clear definitions and anti abuse safeguards.

    TMI Notes

    Back

    All TMI Notes

    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
      No Records Found

      TMI Notes

      Back

      All TMI Notes

      whatsappJoin Channel
      Showing Results for : Reset Filters

      Resolution Plan Approvals: The Supreme Court's Clarification on NCLT and NCLAT's Jurisdiction in Insolvency Resolution.

      14 February, 2024

      Contents
      Plus +
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Deciphering Legal Judgments: A Comprehensive Analysis of Case Law

      Reported as:

      2023 (11) TMI 910 - Supreme Court

      Introduction: In a defining judgment, the Supreme Court of India elaborated on the jurisdictional boundaries of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) within the framework of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). This analysis ventures into the intricate details of the case, focusing on how and where the NCLT and NCLAT issued their orders, leading to a crucial legal discourse on the sanctity of the Committee of Creditors' (CoC) commercial wisdom and the precise extent of judicial review permissible under the IBC.

      Background: The core of the dispute emanated from a resolution plan submitted for the insolvency resolution of a company, which triggered a debate on the valuation of the company's assets and the commercial decisions made by the CoC. The NCLT, in its order dated 01.09.2021, and the NCLAT, through its judgment dated 19.01.2022, directed a revaluation of assets, raising significant questions about their jurisdiction and the scope of their authority to alter or influence the CoC's commercial decisions.

      Analysis of Issues:

      1. NCLT and NCLAT's Orders: The NCLT's directive for asset revaluation stemmed from an application for the approval of a resolution plan. The tribunal's order placed the resolution plan in abeyance, mandating a reassessment of the corporate debtor's asset value. The NCLAT upheld this directive, reinforcing the call for a detailed asset valuation, which became a pivotal issue leading to the Supreme Court's intervention.

      2. Jurisdictional Overreach: The crux of the Supreme Court's analysis centered on whether the NCLT and NCLAT had overstepped their jurisdiction by mandating asset revaluation. The Court scrutinized the extent of the tribunals' authority under the IBC, especially in relation to interfering with the CoC's commercial judgments.

      3. Commercial Wisdom of the CoC: A significant aspect of the discussion revolved around the principle that the commercial wisdom of the CoC is paramount and generally not amenable to judicial review. The Supreme Court emphasized that the IBC vests the CoC with the ultimate discretion to evaluate and approve resolution plans based on their assessment of the corporate debtor's value and the feasibility of the proposed resolution plan.

      Discussion and Findings:

      The Supreme Court's at the end of para 30 has noted that, "At the cost of repetition, nobody had moved before the NCLT or raised any objection challenging the Resolution Plan pending approval. Even the NCLAT has only indicated that when “figures of crores” are emerging stage-wise, “then there is no harm to look at the Expert opinion”, which the Adjudicating Authority-NCLT in this case has asked for".

      The Supreme Court's observation at the end of paragraph 30 underscores a critical aspect of judicial intervention in the corporate insolvency resolution process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The Court noted that there had been no objections or challenges to the resolution plan pending approval before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) by any party. This absence of objections signifies the unchallenged acceptance of the resolution plan by the stakeholders involved, highlighting the autonomy and the commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors (CoC) in making decisions regarding the insolvency resolution.

      Furthermore, the Supreme Court's reference to the NCLAT's remark about considering expert opinions when "figures of crores" are involved underlines the prudence of seeking specialized expertise in complex financial assessments. However, the Court clarifies that such an approach does not inherently mandate revaluation or reassessment of assets as directed by the NCLT in this case. Instead, the emphasis is on the limited scope of judicial review concerning the commercial decisions taken by the CoC. The NCLT's request for revaluation, as indicated, was not rooted in any substantial objection raised during the approval process, which suggests an overreach of its adjudicatory role as envisioned under the IBC.

      The Supreme Court's observation highlights the principle that the adjudicatory authorities (NCLT and NCLAT) should refrain from interfering in the commercial wisdom of the CoC, especially in the absence of any objections or challenges to the resolution plan. This restraint is crucial to maintaining the sanctity of the CoC's decisions and ensuring a smooth and efficient insolvency resolution process, free from unnecessary judicial intervention. The observation underscores the importance of respecting the specialized knowledge and decisions of financial creditors in resolving corporate insolvency, while also recognizing the role of expert opinions in assisting the adjudication process when significant financial stakes are involved.

      Conclusion:

      The Supreme Court's decision to set aside the orders of the NCLT and NCLAT was rooted in a fundamental principle of the IBC: the limited scope of judicial intervention in the CoC's commercial decisions. The Court elucidated that the NCLT and NCLAT, by mandating a revaluation of assets, had unduly interfered with the commercial prerogatives of the CoC. This interference was deemed beyond their jurisdiction, highlighting a misapprehension of their role as adjudicating bodies under the IBC.

      This landmark judgment by the Supreme Court reasserts the autonomy of the CoC in the insolvency resolution process, delineating the boundaries of judicial review by the NCLT and NCLAT. By clarifying the jurisdictional limits of these tribunals, the Court has reinforced the IBC's intent to facilitate swift and efficient insolvency resolutions, ensuring that the commercial wisdom of the CoC remains supreme. The decision underscores the necessity of adhering to the statutory framework of the IBC, safeguarding the resolution process from unwarranted judicial overreach, and maintaining the balance between judicial oversight and commercial discretion.

       


      Full Text:

      2023 (11) TMI 910 - Supreme Court

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax