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
    Maximum Marginal Rate and Surcharge for Discretionary Trusts: ITAT Special Bench Clarifies Slab-Base...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Classification of Quicklime under the Customs Tariff: CESTAT Bangalore's Reaffirmation of HSN-Based ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Reassessment Notices Post-Ashish Agarwal and TOLA: Limitation and Sanction u/ss 149 and ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Seizure, Provisional Release and Limitation: Supreme Court on the Interplay of Sections 110(2), 110A...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Prima Facie Adjustments v. Substantive Adjudication: Procedural Boundaries in Return Processing (CPC...
    Survey, Unaccounted Stock (Eye-Estimates) and the Limits of Section 130: Statutory Primacy of Sectio...
    Input Tax Credit Abuse (ITC Fraud) and Judicial Review: Delhi High Court on Natural Justice, RUDs an...
    Writ Jurisdiction and Statutory Appeal in GST Fraud Investigations: A Judicial Re-affirmation
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) Post-Amendment, Accumulated Income and the Sixth Year: Legal Interpretation, Procedura...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Form No.10B & Section 119(2)(b): Condonation of Delay in Tax Exemption Claims: Principles, Precedent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Regulatory Ambit of Import of Second-Hand Electronic Capital Goods: Classification, Exemption and Pr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 195, DTAAs and Software Licences: A Practical Framework for Withholding Tax
    Provisional Attachment under GST: Draconian Powers, Statutory Time-Bars and the Rule of Law: Interpr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 263 Revisited: Jurisdictional Boundaries Where AO Takes a Plausible View on 80G Claims
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional Release in Customs Law: Balancing Revenue Protection and Commercial Fairness - A Compara...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Conditional Re-export and Revenue Safeguards: Judicially Crafted Remedies in Customs Adjudication
    GST Limitation Regime vs Executive Notifications: Judicial Review of Time-Limit Notifications under ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) After Finance Act, 2022: Utilization of Accumulated Income - Deemed Income, Vesting an...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    When Can an ITAT Reopen a Decision? Distinguishing Prior Binding Precedent from Subsequent Case-Law
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment and Jurisdiction: Reconciling JAO Roles with NFAC u/ss 144B & 151A (JAO / FAO)
❯❯
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
    Discretionary trusts taxed at maximum marginal rate must have surcharge computed under slab and threshold rules, not automatically at top rate.
    For private discretionary trusts taxed at the maximum marginal rate under sections 164/167B, the term denotes the highest basic slab rate under the Finance Act, but surcharge on that tax must be computed according to the Finance Act's slab- and threshold-based surcharge provisions; if the trust's total income does not cross the statutory surcharge threshold, no surcharge is leviable despite basic tax being at the top slab rate.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Quicklime classification: impure lime falls under specific tariff heading, not high purity calcium oxide, per HSN purity standard.
    The imported material, chemically tested as impure calcium oxide (about 92.2% CaO with mineral impurities), is classifiable under Heading 2522 10 00 as Quicklime. Chapter Note 1 to Chapter 25 must be read contextually and does not disqualify quicklime from Chapter 25 where the tariff text and HSN Explanatory Notes expressly contemplate calcined quicklime. Heading 2825 is confined to chemically pure calcium oxide (approximately 98% CaO) and its residuary sub-heading cannot displace the specific Heading 2522 unless that purity threshold and absence of impurities are met.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reassessment notices: surviving-time computation under COVID-era relief and new limitation rules renders late notices time-barred.
    The court held that in transitional reassessment cases the appropriate sanctioning authority is determined by when the original three-year expiry fell within the COVID-era relief window, so approval by the ordinarily specified authority for within-three-year cases suffices; limitation is governed by a two-step surviving-time computation measured from the original notice as of the relief-window terminal date, excluding stayed periods and the time allowed to reply, and any later notice issued beyond that surviving time is time-barred under the substituted limitation regime read with the time-relief statute and the legal-fiction continuity.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Seizure of goods: six month statutory limit for issuing show cause notice is mandatory despite provisional release.
    The six month limit in Section 110(2) for issuing a show cause notice after seizure under Section 110(1) is mandatory; only a single six month extension under the first proviso is permissible. Provisional release under Section 110A does not suspend, extend or neutralise that time bar. The 2018 second proviso making the six month rule inapplicable where provisional release is ordered is a substantive change and does not validate pre amendment seizures prolonged without notice.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Prima facie adjustments cannot decide debatable legal claims in return processing; contested deductions require scrutiny procedures.
    When a claimed deduction depends on timely deposit of employee welfare contributions and the legal question is debatable or pending higher adjudication, summary processing adjustments cannot be used to resolve the dispute; such matters require scrutiny or reassessment procedures and the validity of any processing-stage action must be judged by the law and facts existing at the time of processing.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Survey discovered unaccounted stock must be assessed under sections 35(6) and 73/74, not via section 130.
    Tax liability for unaccounted goods found in a survey must be determined under section 35(6) read with sections 73/74 of the GST Act; section 130 cannot be used to quantify tax or levy penalty in such cases. The statutory cross reference to sections 73/74 requires adherence to their procedural safeguards, and quantification based solely on eye estimates during survey is insufficient without proper weighment or verification.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit fraud: writ relief limited where appeals exist; hearings and raw RUDs generally suffice absent prejudice.
    The High Court held that writ jurisdiction must be exercised with restraint in complex ITC fraud matters appealable under Section 107; at least one personal hearing and provision of RUDs as collected by the Department generally suffice absent demonstrable prejudice; detailed allocation of penal liability under Sections 73/74/75(13)/122 requires adjudicatory or appellate factfinding and cannot be resolved in writ proceedings.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Writ jurisdiction limited where statutory appeal exists for fact intensive GST fraud investigations; appellate forum preferred for evidentiary disputes.
    The High Court reaffirmed that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is generally inappropriate where a statutory appeal exists for fact intensive GST investigations alleging fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit through fake invoices. Courts should confine review to jurisdictional defects or breaches of natural justice; detailed evidentiary disputes involving voluminous Relied Upon Documents, recorded statements and transaction chains are better resolved by the specialised appellate forum, which should hear appeals on merits and avoid dismissing on limitation grounds where appropriate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Prospectivity of tax amendments: changes to accumulation rules apply from their effective date, not to prior accruals.
    Interpretation of section 11(3) concludes that, under the pre-amendment text, accumulated charitable funds could be applied in the year immediately following the five-year accumulation period; the 2022/2023 amendment removing that year was treated as prospective under the presumption against retrospective tax imposition. Separately, corrections by the Centralised Processing Centre under section 143(1) are confined to mechanistic errors and should not resolve debatable substantive questions of statutory interpretation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay in tax exemption claims should favor substantive rights over mere technical filing defects when bona fide.
    Equitable application of the Condonation Power requires authorities to admit late Form No.10B filings when short delays or credible explanations would otherwise strip claimants of substantive exemption rights; procedural defects such as digital-signature technicalities must be tested against documentary e-filing evidence and substantial compliance, while administrative safeguards permit subsequent verification of the audit report.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Imported second hand MFDs meeting HSE technical criteria can be exempt from BIS registration and obtain conditional provisional release.
    Where importers produce prima facie evidence that imported second hand MFDs meet the Highly Specialized Equipment (HSE) criteria (limited units per model and physical thresholds such as weight >80 kg), those devices are exempt from compulsory BIS registration under the CRO and fall within the FTP residuary category for second hand capital goods; accordingly, provisional release may be granted on conditions (bond/guarantee and document verification) without prejudice to final adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Royalty characterisation for software determines withholding-non exclusive copies/licenses generally not subject to TDS unless income is chargeable.
    Payments for off the shelf/shrink wrapped software or hardware embedded software that constitute a resale of a copyrighted article or a grant of a non exclusive, restricted licence for internal use do not ordinarily constitute royalty under section 9(1)(vi) or typical DTAA provisions; withholding under section 195 arises only where the non resident's receipts are chargeable to tax in India (e.g., due to a PE or transfer of substantive copyright rights), and retrospective domestic amendments cannot be used to impose past withholding obligations on payors who lacked notice of the expanded definition.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional attachment limits: fixed statutory expiry prevents re-issuance of lapsed attachment orders on same property.
    A provisional attachment under the CGST scheme automatically ceases on expiry of the statutory time limit; once it has lapsed by operation of law, tax authorities have no power to re issue or renew a fresh provisional attachment over the same property on substantially the same grounds, and any such fresh order is void. Procedural rules or executive instructions cannot be used to circumvent this statutory safeguard and must be aligned with the primary legislation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisional jurisdiction cannot overturn a plausible assessment on charitable deductions where donation conditions are met.
    Tribunals held that Explanation 2 limiting CSR expenditure as a business deduction operates within the business income chapter and does not ipso facto bar claims under the donations regime; specific statutory exceptions indicate Parliament's choice to restrict only certain items. A mandatory CSR outlay does not automatically negate donation character where there is no material return, provided donee approval and documentary evidence are established. On revisional power, section 263 cannot be invoked to overturn an assessing officer's tenable, precedent backed view where enquiries were made; revision is justified only if the AO's conclusion is legally untenable or there was no inquiry.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional release of seized imports permitted subject to proportionate security, favouring bonds over bank guarantees before adjudication.
    Provisional release under Section 110 is permitted subject to proportionate protections: payment of duties as self-assessed; payment of a substantive portion (commonly fifty percent) of any departmental differential; and execution of enforceable bonds for the balance. Bank guarantees or cash security for speculative fines prior to adjudication are often disproportionate and may be replaced by bonds, though deliberate mis-declaration, concealment or prohibited imports justify stricter protective measures.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Conditional re-export of detained imports permitted when revenue is secured by enforceable financial guarantees and timelines.
    Courts may permit re-export of detained imports where the anticipated departmental remedy is monetary, provided the importer furnishes enforceable financial safeguards-typically a bond quantifying revenue exposure and a bank guarantee for a calibrated portion of the redetermined value-and complies with prescribed timelines; such orders are without prejudice to the Department's right to complete investigations, adjudicate, assess differential duties, and impose penalties.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Force majeure causation in GST limitation: proximate cause and mandatory council recommendation govern valid time limit extensions.
    Section 168A empowers executive modification of GST limitation periods but operates as delegated legislation subject to strict construction: valid exercise requires (i) a qualifying force majeure event, (ii) inability to complete prescribed actions, and (iii) proximate causation by that event; GST Council recommendation is a mandatory precondition and GIC substitution or post-facto ratification does not cure statutory defect.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Accumulated trust income: Tribunal rulings treat the 2022 amendment as prospective, preserving the prior six year utilisation window.
    Two Tribunal benches held that the Finance Act, 2022 amendment to the accumulation provision is prospective; accumulations made before 1 April 2022 remain governed by the prior law including the additional one year grace, and utilisation within that six year window cannot be taxed for AY 2023 24. The Tribunals relied on the presumption against retrospectivity, the Finance Bill memorandum stating an effective date of 1 April 2023, and fairness doctrines to conclude Parliament did not intend to curtail vested rights retroactively.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tribunal recall power limited: later judicial overruling alone cannot reopen finalized tax orders under review rules.
    The tribunal's power to amend is limited to rectifying a mistake apparent from the record existing at the time of the original order or to taking into account contemporaneous binding precedent not placed before it; a subsequent overruling or clarification by a superior court cannot alone justify recall, in light of the explanatory bar in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC and related authorities.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Concurrent jurisdiction between JAO and faceless authorities affirmed; JAO may initiate reassessment followed by faceless assessment.
    The faceless scheme and RMS produce information that may be surfaced to the JAO, permitting the JAO to conduct the pre-notice inquiry and form satisfaction to issue a notice initiating reassessment; thereafter records may be transmitted for faceless assessment via automated allocation, embodying a two-stage model that preserves both JAO initiation authority and central faceless assessment.

    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