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
    Upholding the Transfer of Assessment Proceedings u/s 127: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsService Tax
    Navigating the Taxation Labyrinth: The Supreme Court's Guidance on Transfer of Right to Use Goods
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Supreme Court Upholds Forfeiture of Earnest-Money Deposits under SARFAESI Rules
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    The Generality vs. Enumeration Principle: A Key to Interpreting Delegated Rule-Making Power: Validit...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Share Premium Addition u/s 68: Demystifying Share Premium Transactions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Intricacies of Income Tax Penalty u/s 271(1)(c): Fairness in Tax Administration
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Ensuring Fair Procedure before declaring Fraud in Bank Loan: Providing Relevant Documents and Opport...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Scope and Limitations under Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of Search and Seizure Assessments: Unraveling the Intricacies of Section...
    Decoding the Judgement: Navigating the Complexities of ITC Eligibility under the GST Regime
    Excess stock found during survey: Navigating the Intricacies of UPGST / CGST Act and Invoking Wrong ...
    Striking a Balance: Judicial Interpretation of GST Provisions on Record-Keeping and Penalties
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Interim Orders and the Limits of Article 142: Safeguarding Natural Justice Balancing Judicial Powers...
    Upholding Fairness and Transparency in Insolvency Resolution: A Landmark Judgment on the IBC
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Supreme Court Clarifies Vicarious Liability of Directors in Cheque Dishonour Cases
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Interim Compensation in Cheque Dishonor Cases: Discretion and Due Process, Scope of the word "May"
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Unraveling the Principles of Delay Condonation: A Comprehensive Analysis by the Supreme Court
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting Section 80G Provisions: ITAT's Stance on Charitable Institution Registration
    Case LawsCustoms
    Monetary Limits for Filing Appeals: Analyzing the CESTAT Judgment on Binding Nature of CBIC Instruct...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting the Scope and Limits of Sections 153A and 153C: A Judicial Perspective
❯❯
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
    Transfer of assessment proceedings for coordinated investigations and administrative convenience upheld where procedural safeguards and factual links exist.
    The judgment explains that transfers of assessment proceedings pursuant to the statutory transfer power may be justified for coordinated enquiries and administrative convenience, provided the decision is not capricious or mala fide. Authorities must afford an opportunity to be heard and consider objections; where factual indicia exist - for example, disclosed transactions such as unsecured loans with searched persons - centralisation can be sustained. The convenience of the assessee is relevant but subservient to effective adjudication and tax collection, and transfers supported by procedural compliance and factual nexus are not arbitrary.
    Case LawsService Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Transfer of right to use goods: contracts retaining operational control are service arrangements, not deemed sales under VAT.
    The issue is whether supply agreements for cranes, trailers and tank trucks amount to a transfer of the right to use goods under the deemed sale provision. Applying the five BSNL tests-availability of goods, consensus on identity, transferee's legal right to use, exclusivity of use, and non transferability by owner-the contracts failed to meet the criteria. Contractors retained possession, crew, fuel, maintenance and liability, and transferees had only permissive use without effective control, so the arrangements were services, not deemed sales under VAT/sales tax.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Forfeiture of earnest-money deposits under SARFAESI rules stands as a statutory consequence, limiting equitable intervention.
    The analysis affirms that Rule 9(5) of the SARFAESI Rules prescribes an express statutory forfeiture of earnest-money deposits arising from auction terms, and that Sections 73 and 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, addressing contractual damages, do not apply to such statutory forfeitures. Unjust enrichment and equitable considerations cannot supplant a clear statutory forfeiture, and subsequent recovery by the secured creditor does not negate the forfeiture, except in narrowly defined exceptional circumstances where equity may justify relief.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Generality vs. enumeration principle affirms broad delegated rule making power, upholding rules that further an Act's statutory purposes.
    The Court held that Rule 9(3) is intra vires because the general delegated rule making power in section 29A(1) authorises rules that carry out the Act's purposes even when not covered by enumerated heads. Applying the generality vs. enumeration principle, the Court found the enumerated matters in section 29A(2) illustrative and not restrictive, and concluded Rule 9(3) furthers the misconduct chapter's object of maintaining ethical standards and preventing wrongful threshold dismissal of genuine complaints.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Burden of proof in share premium cases: failure to prove investor identity and genuineness sustains addition under section 68.
    The assessment of share premium under section 68 requires the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of investors who subscribe at a premium. The court scrutinised disparate allotments made on consecutive days, examined subscribing companies' financials, and applied the doctrine of "source of source" restrictively, holding that incorporation papers or bank payments alone do not discharge the burden. Absent cogent evidence tracing funds to lawful origin and demonstrating commercial rationale for large premiums, additions under section 68 are supportable.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Strict construction of penalty provisions prevents penalty where taxpayer disclosed omitted income before assessment notice.
    The legal focal point is whether Section 271(1)(c) can be invoked where an assessee disclosed omitted income and paid differential tax before initiation of reassessment. Penal provisions require strict construction, and Explanation 1 treats a pre-notice satisfactory explanation and admission of additional income as accepted, precluding characterization as concealment. Additionally, a penalty notice must specify the particular ground for proceeding; failure to do so renders the notice defective and undermines the basis for penalty.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Right to be heard: affected parties must receive documents underlying fraud allegations and be allowed inspection and rebuttal.
    Classification of a loan account as fraud invokes the Principles of Natural Justice, requiring disclosure of the documents forming the basis of a Show Cause Notice and inspection access to bank and Resolution Professional records so the affected party can identify required documents, receive copies, and submit a meaningful reply within specified timelines, with scope to request a personal hearing.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Scope of reassessment: AO may address newly noticed income but remains constrained by the recorded reasons for reopening.
    Where the AO has recorded reasons to believe income escaped assessment, the AO may assess or reassess issues that come to notice during reassessment, but if no additions or modifications are ultimately made in respect of the issues that formed the basis for reopening, the AO cannot make additions or modifications relating solely to other matters that were part of the original assessment. Explanation 3 applies only after reassessment power is validly invoked and cannot be used to deviate from or supplant the recorded reasons.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Corroboration requirement for search statements: unsupported search statements cannot sustain additions without linked incriminating material and fair cross examination.
    Additions for alleged accommodation entries cannot rest solely on statements recorded during search operations; such statements require corroboration by material found in the search that is specifically linked to the assessee. The assessing officer must articulate a factual nexus between seized group material and the assessee, and procedural fairness-including provision of relevant statements and opportunity for cross-examination-is essential. Cure provisions do not validate jurisdictional defects arising from absence of requisite notice or lack of incriminating material.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit eligibility clarified: refund for unutilised ITC limited to inverted duty where input goods tax exceeds output supplies.
    The court construes Section 54(3) narrowly: refund of unutilised ITC for inverted duty arises only where tax on input goods exceeds tax on output supplies. It upholds the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) and Section 16(4), confirms that ITC is subject to legislatively prescribed conditions and time limits, and clarifies that the non-obstante clause in Section 16(2) does not override separate restrictions such as Section 16(4). Affected petitioners may invoke circulars and have eligible ITC claims processed where returns met the prescribed extended filing position.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Determination of tax on unaccounted stock must proceed under Sections 73 and 74, not Section 130.
    The Court held that tax determination for excess or unaccounted stock discovered in a survey must proceed under the statutory assessment procedures for undisclosed goods rather than by invoking the survey provision. The assessment code prescribes the exclusive mechanism for quantifying and demanding tax, and survey powers cannot be used to supplant the prescribed steps for computation, notice and imposition of tax or penalty on unaccounted goods.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Record-keeping obligations: failure attracts a capped statutory penalty and invalidates arbitrary confiscation without due process.
    The judgment emphasises that registered persons must maintain prescribed books and electronic records under Section 35 and related rules, and that any determination of tax on unaccounted goods must follow the show cause procedures for assessing tax liability. It finds that conditions for confiscation under Section 130 were not met and that penalties must be imposed in accordance with the statutory bifurcation in Section 122, with the offences in question attracting only the capped penalty, thereby underscoring procedural limits on enforcement powers.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Limits on Article 142: extraordinary power cannot automatically vacate interim stays; natural justice and supervisory jurisdiction must be preserved.
    Limits on the Supreme Court's extraordinary jurisdiction were defined to prevent blanket, time based vacation of interim stays; equitable power cannot deprive non parties of substantive benefits or negate the right to be heard. The Court confined vacation rules to cases where interim relief was granted without notice, instructed High Courts to grant limited ad interim relief, prioritise vacation applications, avoid routine time bound disposal directives, and recognised that past automatic vacations that led to concluded trials raise finality concerns while endorsing judicial superintendence and natural justice as constitutional constraints.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Insolvency plan compliance: failure to acknowledge creditor claims or secure approvals undermines approved resolution plans.
    The court held that a recall application grounded in lack of notice and alleged misrepresentation is maintainable under principles of natural justice. It found the resolution plan non-compliant with Section 30(2) read with Regulations 37 and 38-specifically for failing to acknowledge a creditor's claim, misrecording the payable amount, omitting secured creditor classification despite a charge, and proposing use of third-party statutory land without necessary approvals-deficiencies that materially affected the plan's transparency and treatment of creditor classes.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Vicarious liability of directors clarified: specific averments required to link a director to company affairs before liability attaches.
    The Court held that vicarious liability of a director in cheque dishonour cases cannot be invoked by merely reproducing statutory language or alleging directorship; complaints must contain specific factual averments showing how the director was responsible for or in charge of the company's day to day affairs to link the director to issuance or dishonour of negotiable instruments.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Interim compensation discretion: courts must prima facie assess claims and defences before ordering payment under Section 143A.
    The Court interpreted Section 143A(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act as conferring a discretionary power to order interim compensation, holding that the word "may" cannot be read as mandatory. Courts must prima facie assess the complainant's case and the accused's defence; the presumption under section 139 alone does not suffice. Interim compensation may be directed only when a prima facie case is established, with the quantum determined after considering transaction nature, parties' relationship, and the accused's paying capacity, and brief reasons must be recorded.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay: courts require sufficient cause, balancing strict limitation rules with liberal remedial discretion.
    Principles of condonation of delay require balancing the Limitation Act's public policy against stale litigation: Section 3 is to be strictly interpreted while Section 5 is to be construed liberally to allow judicial discretion where sufficient cause is shown. Discretion remains limited by considerations such as inordinate delay, negligence, and lack of due diligence, and prior decisions granting condonation do not automatically justify relief unless the factual matrices are substantially similar.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Registration under Section 80G: provisional approval permits subsequent final registration regardless of prior commencement of activities.
    The Tribunal held that institutions granted provisional approval under the First Proviso to Section 80G(5) are entitled to apply for final registration under the proviso's final-registration clause, and that the relevant date of commencement is to be counted from activities undertaken after grant of provisional registration; a prior commencement of activities before provisional grant cannot alone justify rejection of a final-approval application.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Binding nature of departmental instructions vs natural justice: tribunals may prioritize procedural fairness over monetary thresholds.
    The CESTAT held that CBIC instructions bind departmental officers but do not bind courts and tribunals, which must safeguard natural justice. The Tribunal found the appellate order defective for failing to remit valuation reassessment to the proper officer as statutorily required, treated related Bills of Entry as a single transaction for monetary limit calculation, and invoked its procedural power to hear departmental appeals on merits despite the Board's monetary threshold.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Search assessment provisions under Sections 153A and 153C override ordinary reassessment time limits; asset-threshold verification required.
    The judgment holds that search-triggered assessment provisions function as non-obstante clauses displacing ordinary reassessment time limits, distinguishes the enduring liability to tax from the temporal right to assess, prescribes that block periods are computed from the year of search (or date of receipt of seized records for non-searched persons), and treats the asset-represented income threshold as a mandatory, aggregable precondition requiring the assessing officer's recorded satisfaction.

    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