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
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Jurisdictional Prerequisites for Initiating Reassessment u/s 148: Non-Depoist of TDS by the Employer
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revisiting the Scope of "Record" u/s 263: Embracing Subsequent Records
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Record": Revisiting the Scope of Revision Powers u/s 264 and Rectification of Mistake ...
    The Doctrine of Natural Justice in GST Proceedings: A Case Study on Show Cause Notice u/s 74"
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) and the Concept of "Plant" under GST: Supreme Court
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: High Court's Stance on Quashing Show Cause Notices
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: Upholding the Principles of Natural Justice
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Re-Assessment Notices Issued During COVID-19 Lockdown
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Unraveling the Mineral Rights Regime: The Supreme Court's Landmark Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Assessment Regime: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Evidentiary Value of Statements Recorded During Income Tax Surveys: A Judicial Analysis
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment: Ensuring Compliance with Statutory Provisions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment Mechanism: Jurisdictional Limits in Income Tax Proceedings
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessment Notices for AY 2013-14: Upholding the Doctrine of Limitation
    Principles of Tax Fairness and Mens Rea: Quashes Penalty for Mere Technical Errors
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Decoding the Mandatory Timelines: A Thorough Examination of the Income Tax Assessment Order Nullific...
    Expiry of E-Way Bill AND Mens Rea: Technical Violation Alone Insufficient for Penalty Imposition
    Maintainability of Appeals: High Court Upholds Strict Interpretation of Limitation Provisions in GST...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Stay of Tax Demand: Interpreting the Discretionary Power u/s 220(6) of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Technical Services" under Tax Treaties: A Comprehensive Analysis
❯❯
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
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdictional prerequisite: notice in the name of a deceased person invalidates reassessment initiation under Section 148.
    A notice under Section 148 issued in the name of a deceased person is a jurisdictional defect because a valid notice to the correct person is a condition precedent to reopening an assessment; legal representatives have no statutory duty to intimate death; where salary tax has been deducted at source, reassessment cannot be pursued against the deceased or their representatives, and employer non-deposit of TDS does not create an outstanding demand against the assessee or their legal representatives.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisional power: Commissioner may consider subsequent records available at time of examination in tax proceedings.
    The Court construed the Commissioner's revisional power to permit consideration of all materials relating to the proceeding that are available at the time of his examination, including documents and valuation reports that came on the file after the assessment order; the Explanation to the provision was read as clarificatory, giving an inclusive meaning to "record" rather than restricting it to what the Assessing Officer had when passing the assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revision powers under section 264: Commissioner must consider expanded record and rehear revision petitions on merits.
    The Court held that the Commissioner must consider a revision petition on its merits and that the term record in revision proceedings extends beyond the return and assessment order to include material from other sources and prior assessments. It emphasised consistency in treatment of continuing transactions and required the Principal Commissioner to take into account all relevant materials, identify any apparent mistakes, afford a personal hearing, and pass a reasoned order within a short timeframe.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice in tax proceedings: show cause notices must allege fraud or concealment before enhanced recovery is invoked.
    The court quashed the enhanced-provision show cause notice for failing to allege the essential elements of fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts and held that the enhanced regime may be invoked only when the adjudicating authority is prima facie satisfied of those elements and records that satisfaction in the notice; absent such express allegations the proceedings are without jurisdiction though fresh proceedings may be initiated with a proper notice.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Plant classification under GST: functionality test determines ITC eligibility for buildings serving special technical requirements.
    The expression plant or machinery in Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act must be interpreted by reference to functionality rather than by equating it with the statutory definition of "plant and machinery." A building qualifies as a plant for ITC purposes if, on the facts, it was planned and constructed to serve the assessee's special technical or operational requirements. The functionality test is fact-specific and requires case-by-case analysis of the building's role in the assessee's business.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication bars further proceedings on stale show cause notices absent a reasonable explanation.
    The court found the delay from 2008 to 2021 inordinate and unexplained, concluding the respondents did not provide a reasonable explanation; the delayed transfer to the call book without intimation breached statutory intimation requirements, and established precedent limits reliance on higher authority to excuse gross unexplained delays in adjudication of show cause notices.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication undermines procedural fairness and bars continuation of prolonged, unexplained proceedings.
    The court found that prolonged, unexplained delay in adjudicating a show cause notice breached procedural fairness and natural justice, causing irretrievable prejudice by impairing evidence preservation and business planning. Delay attributable to the revenue authorities, contrary to Tribunal directions for timely disposal, rendered continuance of proceedings unsustainable and emphasized the necessity of justifying delay and ensuring timely adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Pandemic relief legislation upheld: re-assessment notices issued during lockdown remain valid despite later procedural rule.
    The court interpreted the pandemic relief legislation as providing comprehensive relief that extended to procedural obligations in force at the time of issuance, not confined solely to extensions of time. It applied the principle that statutes operate prospectively and concluded the later-introduced procedural provision does not apply retrospectively to invalidate earlier-issued re-assessment notices, limiting its analysis to the validity of issuance and not the merits of re-assessment proceedings.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Central legislative competence over mineral regulation affirmed; royalties characterised as compensation for resource depletion, limiting state levies.
    The Court concluded that the central legislative framework occupies the field of mineral regulation and that royalties are compensation for depletion of state-owned natural resources, not conventional taxes; consequently the Centre may impose such levies while States remain constrained from imposing royalties in the nature of compensation that would encroach on the Centre's exclusive regulatory domain.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment mechanism requires reassessment steps to follow a centralized faceless procedure, otherwise territorial officer lacks jurisdiction.
    The Scheme framed under the enabling provision must be read to include preliminary proceedings linked to reassessment, so that reassessment initiation and related steps follow the faceless mechanism; concurrent exercise of territorial and faceless functions would undermine the Scheme's purpose and render steps taken outside the faceless protocol inconsistent with the statutory framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Evidentiary value of survey statements: survey disclosures lack conclusive weight and require independent corroboration.
    Statements recorded during a tax survey are permissive and not taken on oath, so they are not conclusive evidence by themselves; they cannot be treated as inherently incriminating material to justify reopening assessments or making additions without independent corroboration, and must be recorded free of coercion in line with administrative instructions and judicial precedents.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment jurisdiction: JAO lacked authority under the statutory faceless procedure, invalidating improperly issued notices.
    The court determined that reassessment notices and related proceedings were inconsistent with the statutory faceless assessment framework because they were issued without following the prescribed allocation of jurisdiction and procedural sequence under the faceless mechanism; administrative orders purportedly exempting cases were not read to displace the statutory requirements and earlier precedent interpreting the faceless provisions was applied.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless Assessment: statutory scheme governs jurisdiction and extends to central and international taxation proceedings.
    The court analysed Section 151A read with Sections 144B and 148A and held that administrative instructions dated March 31, 2021 and September 6, 2021 issued under section 119 apply only to assessment orders and do not extend to proceedings under Sections 148A and 148; those instructions cannot be read into the scheme notified on March 29, 2022. The mandatory faceless procedure under Sections 144B and 151A applies to notices and proceedings, including central charges and international taxation charges, and notices issued outside that mechanism fall outside the statutory jurisdictional framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Doctrine of limitation prevents revival of lapsed reassessment powers; administrative instructions cannot "travel back in time."
    The court held that when the right to reopen assessment had already lapsed under the pre amended limitation regime, subsequent amendments or administrative instructions could not revive that right; administrative attempts to "travel back in time" and extend limitation were invalid, assessees retain the defence of limitation, and pandemic era notifications did not cover years whose limitation had already expired.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement in tax penalties: technical errors without intent cannot justify penalty imposition under GST compliance.
    Requirement of mens rea for imposition of tax penalties is central where e Way Bill compliance is questioned. Mere procedural or timing inconsistencies, without evidence of intent to evade tax and where valid tax invoices accompany the goods and tax has been charged, do not justify penal action. Authorities must establish culpable intent with cogent reasoning and comply with procedural and natural justice safeguards before imposing penalties.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Mandatory timelines under Section 144C require assessments to be completed within the prescribed month after DRP direction, else invalid.
    Once the DRP framed directions, the Assessing Officer was obliged to complete the assessment in conformity with those directions within one month from the end of the month in which the DRP's direction was served; service by uploading the DRP directive on the ITBA portal constitutes valid service for computing that period. The procedure does not envisage further involvement of the Transfer Pricing Officer once the DRP's direction is issued and an order under the transfer pricing provision has been remitted to the AO.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement: technical expiry of an e way bill alone cannot justify a tax penalty without intent to evade.
    The court held that a purely technical lapse in E Way Bill formalities - where goods were otherwise covered by two e invoices and two E Way Bills and there was no dispute on consignor, consignee or goods - does not demonstrate the mens rea necessary to impose a penalty under the tax penal provision; authorities' focus on the expired E Way Bill alone was legally insufficient given documentary explanations and absence of intent to evade tax.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Exclusion of Limitation Act: GST Act's specific appellate time limits operate as a self contained code, barring general extensions.
    The court analysed whether the GST Act's appellate limitation regime operates as a complete code excluding the general Limitation Act. It applied the principle that fiscal statutes with detailed procedural and temporal rules are to be strictly construed, treating the special statute's limitation provision as implying exclusion of the Limitation Act's extension mechanism, and emphasised policy aims of expeditious dispute resolution, revenue certainty and administrative finality.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Assessing Officer discretion in granting stay of tax demand cannot be rigidly constrained by administrative OMs, requiring case specific consideration.
    The Assessing Officer's discretionary power under section 220(6) to grant stay of tax demand is not fettered by CBDT Office Memorandums; those OMs are administrative guidelines and do not mandate a uniform pre deposit. The AO must consider prima facie case, likelihood of success, and undue hardship and may require a higher, lower or no deposit depending on case specific facts. Administrative adjustment of refunds without considering a pending stay application was held arbitrary and the matter was remitted for reconsideration applying these principles.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Technical services interpretation requires specialized expertise and a demonstrable link to payments for withholding tax consequences.
    Interpretation of technical services under the India Ireland DTAA requires the application or transfer of specialized knowledge, skill or expertise; incidental training or assistance enabling a reseller to market standard software does not meet that threshold. The Reseller Agreement did not contemplate technology transfer or bespoke solutions, payments were tied to reseller net revenue, and the record lacked material linking remittances to customized technical services. Authorities must establish an evidentiary and contractual nexus between payments and provision of specialized technical services before applying withholding tax under the treaty.

    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

      Tax Incentives for Start-ups in India : Clause 140 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 and Comparative Analysis with Section 80IAC of Income-tax Act, 1961

      17 April, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Clause 140 Special provision in respect of specified business.

      Income Tax Bill, 2025

      Introduction

      Clause 140 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, introduces a comprehensive regime for tax deductions in respect of profits and gains derived by eligible start-ups from specified businesses. This clause is fundamentally a continuation and evolution of the existing Section 80IAC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which has served as the bedrock for start-up tax incentives in India since its introduction in 2016. Both provisions are designed to foster innovation, job creation, and economic growth by providing tax relief to start-ups engaged in eligible businesses. This commentary undertakes a detailed analysis of Clause 140, examining its structure, scope, and implications, and provides a comparative analysis with Section 80IAC, highlighting continuities, departures, and the broader policy landscape.

      Objective and Purpose

      The legislative intent behind Clause 140, as with Section 80IAC, is to incentivize entrepreneurship and innovation by offering significant tax deductions to start-ups. The provision is tailored to address barriers faced by new businesses, particularly those in technology and scalable sectors, by reducing their tax burden during the crucial early years. The policy considerations include enhancing India's global competitiveness, promoting employment generation, and encouraging wealth creation through the development of new products, services, and business models. The historical background reflects India's push, since 2016, to become a start-up hub, with tax incentives forming a key pillar of the government's Start-up India initiative.

      Detailed Analysis of Clause 140 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025

      1. Scope of Deduction (Sub-sections 1 and 2)

      Clause 140(1) provides that an eligible start-up, whose gross total income includes profits and gains from an eligible business, is entitled to a deduction of 100% of such profits for three consecutive tax years. The deduction is not automatic for the first three years; rather, as per sub-section (2), the assessee may claim the deduction for any three consecutive tax years out of ten years from the year of incorporation. This flexibility allows start-ups to optimize the benefit by timing the deduction during their most profitable years within the first decade of their existence.

      This approach is identical to the structure in Section 80IAC, which also allows the deduction for any three consecutive assessment years out of ten years from incorporation. The alignment in the period and flexibility reflects a recognition of the variability in start-up profitability cycles.

      2. Eligibility Conditions (Sub-sections 3, 16)

      Clause 140(3) sets out two core eligibility requirements:

      • Not formed by splitting up or reconstruction of an existing business.
      • Not formed by transfer of previously used machinery or plant.

      Sub-section 16 further defines "eligible business" and "eligible start-up." The business must involve innovation, development, or improvement of products, processes, or services, or a scalable business model with high employment or wealth creation potential. The start-up must be a company or LLP incorporated between 1 April 2016 and 1 April 2030, with turnover not exceeding Rs. 100 crore in the relevant tax year, and must possess a certificate from the Inter-Ministerial Board of Certification.

      These conditions closely mirror those in Section 80IAC, with only minor linguistic variations. Notably, both provisions exclude entities formed by mere reorganization or transfer of assets, to ensure that only genuinely new and innovative businesses benefit. The certification requirement adds a layer of scrutiny to prevent misuse.

      3. Treatment of Re-established or Revived Businesses (Sub-section 4)

      Clause 140(4) introduces a carve-out: if a business is discontinued due to natural disasters, riots, fire, or war, and is re-established or revived within three years, the restriction on formation by splitting up or reconstruction does not apply. This provision is designed to support business resilience and recovery in the face of extraordinary events.

      Section 80IAC addresses this issue by cross-referring to section 33B, which provides similar relief for businesses re-established after specified calamities. While the mechanism differs, the substantive effect is similar, aiming to prevent penalizing start-ups that suffer involuntary discontinuities.

      4. Use of Second-hand Machinery or Plant (Sub-sections 5 and 6)

      Clause 140(5) and (6) clarify that imported machinery previously used outside India is not considered "previously used" if certain conditions are met (never used in India, imported, and no prior depreciation claimed). Further, if previously used machinery transferred to the new business does not exceed 20% of the total value of machinery used, the condition is deemed satisfied.

      Section 80IAC incorporates these rules as Explanations 1 and 2 to sub-section (3). The rationale is to accommodate the practical needs of start-ups, which may rely on imported machinery or transfer a small quantum of used assets without forfeiting eligibility.

      5. Computation of Profits (Sub-sections 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14)

      Clause 140(7) mandates that, for the purpose of deduction, profits of the eligible business are to be computed as if it were the only source of income. This isolates the start-up's eligible business profits from other activities, preventing cross-subsidization or dilution of the deduction.

      Sub-sections (9) and (11) address intra-group transfers: if goods or services are transferred between the eligible business and other businesses of the assessee at non-market value, profits are to be recomputed at market value (defined as open market price or arm's length price for specified domestic transactions). Sub-section (10) empowers the Assessing Officer to use a reasonable basis if computation is exceptionally difficult.

      Sub-sections (13) and (14) empower the Assessing Officer to adjust profits if business arrangements with related parties produce more than ordinary profits, with a requirement to use arm's length pricing for specified domestic transactions.

      Section 80IAC, in contrast, incorporates these computational and anti-abuse provisions by reference to Section 80-IA(5) and (7)-(11), which contain similar rules. Clause 140 makes these rules explicit within its own text, possibly for clarity and ease of administration.

      6. Audit Requirement (Sub-section 8)

      Clause 140(8) requires that the accounts of the eligible business be audited by an accountant, and the audit report be filed by the specified date. This ensures compliance and provides the tax authorities with a verified basis for granting deductions.

      Section 80IAC achieves this by reference to Section 80-IA(7), which contains an analogous audit requirement. Clause 140's explicit articulation of this requirement enhances transparency.

      7. Bar on Double Deduction (Sub-section 12)

      Clause 140(12) prohibits double deduction: profits claimed and allowed as deduction under Clause 140 cannot be claimed under any other provision of Part C of the relevant chapter, and deduction cannot exceed actual profits of the eligible business.

      Section 80IAC includes a similar bar through reference to Section 80-IA(13), ensuring that the tax benefit is not duplicated.

      8. Power to Exclude Classes of Undertakings (Sub-section 15)

      Clause 140(15) authorizes the Central Government, via notification, to withdraw the exemption for any class of industrial undertaking or enterprise, prospectively. This provides policy flexibility to address abuse or changed economic circumstances.

      Section 80IAC does not contain an explicit parallel provision, though similar powers may be exercised via amendments or notifications under the parent Act. Clause 140 thus introduces a more direct administrative control.

      9. Definitions (Sub-section 16)

      Clause 140(16) defines key terms:

      • "Eligible business" as innovation-oriented or scalable business with high employment/wealth potential.
      • "Eligible start-up" as a company/LLP incorporated between 1 April 2016 and 1 April 2030, with turnover <= Rs. 100 crore, and certified by the Inter-Ministerial Board.
      • "Limited liability partnership" as defined under the LLP Act, 2008.

      Section 80IAC contains substantially identical definitions.

       

      Practical Implications

      For Start-ups

      The deduction provides a substantial tax holiday, which can be strategically availed during the most profitable years within the first decade of operations. This is particularly advantageous for start-ups with unpredictable or delayed revenue streams, such as those in technology, R&D, or scalable consumer businesses. The conditions relating to formation, asset use, and certification ensure that only genuinely new and innovative businesses benefit.

      The audit requirement and restrictions on intra-group transfers and related party transactions prevent misuse and ensure that the benefit is not artificially inflated through accounting or structuring arrangements.

      For Tax Authorities

      The detailed computational provisions, market value adjustments, and anti-abuse rules provide the authorities with tools to scrutinize claims and prevent tax avoidance. The explicit power to notify exclusions allows the government to respond to emerging abuses or shifts in policy priorities.

      For Investors and the Economy

      The deduction increases the post-tax returns for start-up founders and investors, potentially making Indian start-ups more attractive for investment. The focus on innovation, scalability, and employment aligns the tax incentive with broader economic objectives.

      Comparative Analysis: Clause 140 vs. Section 80IAC

      AspectClause 140 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025Section 80IAC of the Income-tax Act, 1961Comparison/Observations
      Quantum and Period of Deduction100% of profits for 3 consecutive tax years out of 10 from incorporation100% of profits for 3 consecutive assessment years out of 10 from incorporationSubstantially identical; "tax year" replaces "assessment year" for consistency with new Bill terminology
      Eligibility: FormationNot by splitting up/reconstruction or transfer of used machinery; exceptions for disaster recoverySame; exceptions via reference to section 33BClause 140 explicitly lists exceptions; Section 80IAC cross-refers to other sections
      Used Machinery/PlantImported machinery used outside India not treated as "used" if conditions met; up to 20% used allowedSame; via explanationsSubstantively identical; Clause 140 integrates these as sub-sections, 80IAC as explanations
      Definition of Eligible Business/Start-upInnovation, scalable, employment/wealth creation; company/LLP, turnover <= 100 crore, certified, incorporated 2016-2030SameNo change; period extended to 2030 in both
      Audit RequirementExplicit in sub-section (8)By reference to Section 80-IA(7)Clause 140 is more self-contained
      Computation of ProfitsMarket value adjustments, anti-abuse rules, AO's power to recompute, arm's length pricing for specified transactionsBy reference to Section 80-IA(8)-(10)Clause 140 incorporates these rules directly; more accessible
      Double Deduction BarExplicit in sub-section (12)Via Section 80-IA(13)Same effect
      Power to Exclude ClassesCentral Government may notify exclusions prospectivelyNo explicit provisionClause 140 adds administrative flexibility
      Terminology"Tax year", "assessee", "specified date""Assessment year", "assessee", "previous year"Terminological modernization in the Bill

      Ambiguities and Potential Issues

      • Certification Process: The requirement for certification by the Inter-Ministerial Board, while intended as a safeguard, can introduce administrative delays and subjectivity. There have been industry concerns about the transparency and efficiency of this process under the existing regime.
      • Definition of "Innovation" and "Scalable Business Model": While the provision attempts to define eligible businesses, the terms "innovation" and "scalable business model" are inherently subjective and may lead to interpretational disputes.
      • Market Value and Arm's Length Price: The application of market value and arm's length principles to intra-group transactions may be complex in practice, especially for start-ups with unique or intangible products.
      • Audit and Compliance Burden: The audit requirement, while necessary for oversight, can increase compliance costs for nascent start-ups.
      • Policy Uncertainty: The government's power to withdraw exemptions for classes of undertakings, while justified as an anti-abuse measure, could introduce uncertainty for businesses planning long-term investments.

      Comparative Perspective: International and Domestic Context

      Similar start-up tax incentives exist in several jurisdictions, such as the UK's Enterprise Investment Scheme and the US Qualified Small Business Stock exclusion. The Indian regime is broadly comparable in quantum and scope but is distinguished by the requirement for government certification and explicit anti-abuse rules. The ten-year window and three-year deduction period are generous by international standards, though the Rs. 100 crore turnover cap may limit applicability to high-growth start-ups.

      Within India, Clause 140 and Section 80IAC are unique in targeting start-ups, as opposed to general small business or sectoral incentives. The transition to the new Bill's format, with self-contained provisions, may improve clarity and administration.

      Conclusion

      Clause 140 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, represents a consolidation and modernization of the start-up tax incentive regime previously governed by Section 80IAC. The substantive provisions remain closely aligned, ensuring continuity of policy while enhancing clarity through self-contained drafting. The approach balances the need for fostering innovation and economic growth with safeguards against abuse, through eligibility conditions, audit requirements, and anti-avoidance rules. The explicit power to exclude classes of undertakings introduces a new dimension of administrative flexibility, though it also raises concerns regarding certainty and stability for start-ups.

      Going forward, the effectiveness of the regime will depend on the transparency and efficiency of the certification process, the clarity of definitions, and the balance between compliance burden and policy objectives. Judicial and administrative clarifications may be required to address ambiguities, particularly around the interpretation of "innovation" and application of market value principles. Overall, Clause 140 sustains India's commitment to nurturing its start-up ecosystem while adapting to evolving economic and administrative realities.


      Full Text:

      Clause 140 Special provision in respect of specified business.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax