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
    Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS to the Government
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    A Landmark Judgment on Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS ...
    A Case of Coerced Input Tax Credit Reversal - GST recovery during search and seizure proceedings.
    Manner of compliance of conditions of pre-deposit - Debit of amount from electronic credit ledger (E...
    The need for clarity and concrete reasons in the cancellation of GST registrations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of reopening of assessment - need for a direct link between the portal's information and th...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Application of provisions of section 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional release of imported goods (apples) - The dispute centers on the valuation of the import...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Applicability of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of expenses - need for tax authorities to have a practical understanding of the nature ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of the assessee's business expenditure claims related to the purchase of sugarcane from...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Additions made u/s 69 and Section 56 in the absence of direct incriminating evidence linking the ass...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Whether penalty is to be imposed when the appellant has accepted the classification and paid the ent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Liability for payment of customs duty on sale of excess liquor from the duty-free shop
    Case LawsCustoms
    Demand of customs duty beyond normal period of limitation on the ground of change in classification ...
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Stringent approach towards ensuring compliance with auditing standards - importance of auditors' res...
    Whether the appellant's claim can be classified as a Financial Debt or Operational Debt under the In...
    Scope of Approval of resolution plan - Allegations of undervaluation of the Corporate Debtor's asset...
    Denial of Input Tax Credit since the GST registration of the Supplier of Goods has been Cancelled wi...
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) is a vested right or concession - Can government impose conditions or restric...
❯❯
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
    TDS credit entitlement affirmed: deductee entitled to credit despite deductor's non-deposit, preventing indirect recovery.
    Credit for tax deducted at source on interest payments is to be treated as tax paid on the deductee's behalf and does not depend on the deductor's remittance; statutory protections against indirect recovery prevent the revenue from seeking the same tax from the deductee when the deductor fails to deposit the deducted amount, and the deposit requirement in the applicable provisions does not negate the deductee's entitlement to such credit.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tax credit for TDS: deductee entitled to credit even if deductor failed to deposit the retained tax with government.
    The Court treats amounts retained by a deductor as remaining tax and concludes the statutory credit mechanism for tax deducted at source does not condition a deductee's entitlement on the deductor having deposited the retained amount with the government, thereby barring indirect recovery or adjustment against the deductee where tax has been deducted at source.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Coercive tax collection prohibited; forced reversal of input tax credit during search deemed impermissible, with investigatory remedies preserved.
    Dispute involved a search under Section 67 and an alleged coerced reversal of Input Tax Credit from the petitioner's Electronic Credit Ledger for supplies from a supplier with retrospectively cancelled registration; the court found such coercive recovery during search impermissible and directed restoration of the ITC while preserving the department's power to investigate and, if ineligible or fraudulent ITC is found, pass appropriate protective orders.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Pre-deposit payment method: Electronic credit ledger debit does not satisfy pre-deposit; cash ledger payment required for appeals.
    Pre-deposit for appeals under the CGST/BGST regime must be paid from the cash ledger; debit from the electronic credit ledger does not satisfy the statutory pre-deposit requirement. A revenue circular restricting ECRL use to certain output tax payments and excluding reverse charge, interest, penalties, fees, and similar amounts supports that ECRL cannot be used for pre-deposit. The court emphasized the statutory payment scheme and strict appeal filing timelines, rejecting arguments that ECRL debit could substitute for cash ledger payment.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Requirement of clear reasons in GST cancellation: retrospective deregistration must be reasoned and consider input tax credit effects.
    Cancellation of GST registration must be supported by clear reasons and concrete factual findings in show cause notices and cancellation orders; labels that a registration is "liable to be cancelled" without specifying dues or factual basis constitute mechanical action. Retrospective cancellation cannot be applied routinely; authorities must follow statutory procedure, assess causes for non-filing, consider exceptional disruptions to business operations, and account for the impact on input tax credit before fixing an effective date of cancellation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Use of portal data: digital information needs a direct evidential link before reopening income tax assessments.
    Reopening assessments requires a direct evidential link between portal-derived information and the income alleged to have escaped assessment; portal data alone is insufficient without documentary support for transactions or gifts, and a show cause notice must provide adequate particulars and reflect proper consideration of the taxpayer's response before reassessment proceeds.
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Show AI Summary
    Non retrospective application of punitive benami provisions affirmed, limiting enforcement to post amendment transactions.
    Application of Section 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 concerns whether punitive provisions enacted in 2016 apply to transactions predating the amendment. The Appellate Tribunal relied on Supreme Court precedent that such punitive provisions must be applied prospectively, and the High Court emphasized adherence to that interpretation while allowing parties to pursue further remedies pending the Supreme Court review.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional release of perishable imports allowed pending valuation, subject to provisional assessment and bond to protect revenue interests.
    The dispute concerns provisional release of perishable imported apples amid a valuation contest tied to a stayed minimum import price notification. The instrument requires provisional assessment of the Bill of Entry within a brief timeframe and permits conditional provisional release upon the importer furnishing a bond and meeting terms set by customs, thereby reconciling the protection of revenue interests with the practical need to avoid loss to perishable consignments pending final resolution of the notification's applicability.
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Show AI Summary
    Prospective application of punitive benami amendment upheld, limiting reach to post-enactment transactions and preserving pre-enactment protections.
    The Madras High Court affirmed that the enhanced punitive provision introduced by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 is substantive and applies prospectively; it endorsed the Tribunal's reliance on the Supreme Court's Ganapati Dealcom decision, treated a pending Supreme Court review petition as not displacing that precedent, and disposed of the appeals while allowing further proceedings consistent with prospectivity and prior constitutional findings.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Disallowance of expenses must rest on specific documentation defects, not on blanket percentage adjustments.
    Disallowance of business expenses on a summary or estimate basis requires specific, pointed deficiencies and cannot rest on generalized conclusions about excessiveness; in businesses with routine small transactions, tax authorities must examine the nature of operations and identify particular defects in documentation before applying blanket percentage disallowances.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Statutory Minimum Price interpretation: excess cane payments treated as appropriation of profits, not deductible business expense.
    The core issue is whether payments for sugarcane in excess of the Statutory Minimum Price (SMP) are deductible business expenditures or constitute an appropriation of profits. The Assessing Officer relied on standard accounting practice requiring provisions for liabilities at year end and treated post closing excess payments as distributions of operational surplus. The appellate view upheld that cooperative status does not alter the tax analysis and that payments beyond the SMP do not qualify as allowable business expenses absent proper provisioning within the accounting period.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Direct incriminating evidence requirement: third party search materials alone cannot sustain unexplained investment additions.
    Additions alleged as unexplained investments and undisclosed interest income based on third party search materials require a demonstrable direct nexus between those seized records and the assessee; absent such direct incriminating evidence, reliance on third party statements or documents is insufficient. Procedural safeguards and transactional indicia-such as cross examination opportunities, banking records, documentary support, and TDS-reduce the probative value of seized material when direct linkage is lacking.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty under Section 114A: no justification where importer accepted correct classification and paid differential duty before notice.
    Issue: imposition of a penalty for alleged suppression when the importer accepted correct tariff classification and paid the differential duty with interest before issuance of a show cause notice. The importer attributed the earlier misclassification to an agent error and denied intent to evade duty. The authority observed the accurate product description, admission of correct classification and prompt payment, concluded absence of suppression of facts and determined that the statutory penalty provision was not justified on these facts.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Liability under Section 72: duty rests with duty-free shop licence-holder when trade facility conditions are breached.
    Duty arises where a duty-free shop licence-holder breaches voucher and recordkeeping conditions under the trade facility; the licence-holder bears responsibility for payment of duty and interest when procedural requirements are violated, while penalty depends on culpability and may be disallowed where no intent to evade duty is established and customs were aware of the transactions.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Extended limitation in customs demands inapplicable where no suppression, limiting reassessment for CVD on undeclared MRP entries.
    Reassessment and CVD demand arose from a post-clearance change in classification and retrospective reliance on MRP for past entries; the tribunal held that items described were essential refrigeration parts rather than accessories, that MRP-based reassessment requires clear factual basis, and that the Extended Period of Limitation is inapplicable where no suppression is established, although penalty issues may still be considered where omissions occur.
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Auditor responsibility reinforced: regulatory findings against audit failures stress strict adherence to auditing standards and sanctions.
    NFRA found a statutory auditor guilty of professional misconduct for failures to comply with Standards on Auditing, including inadequate procedures to verify revenue, lack of physical inventory verification, insufficient going concern assessment, deficient materiality application, and inadequate communication with Those Charged with Governance, and applied regulatory sanctions to reinforce auditor responsibilities in preserving financial reporting integrity.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Operational debt classification confirmed for supplier's claim based on the transaction's nature under the insolvency framework.
    Whether a claim from a supply arrangement is a Financial Debt or an Operational Debt depends on the transaction's substantive character. The tribunal examined contractual terms-penalties for non-delivery, interest, and security cheques-and applied precedents on the financial-versus-operational distinction. It characterised the supplier's claim, filed under Section 9, as arising from the supply of goods and therefore as an operational debt, sustaining the Resolution Professional's and Adjudicating Authority's classification.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Commercial wisdom of committee of creditors governs resolution plan approval, limiting valuation and standing challenges by promoters.
    Exclusion of the creditor was non irregular as no claim was filed; undervaluation allegations were rejected since opportunities to raise them during the CIRP were not used; the resolution plan satisfied Committee approval requirements and reflected the Committee's commercial wisdom; and a suspended director/promoter lacked standing to challenge the approved plan, underscoring limited judicial interference post approval.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input tax credit denial over supplier deregistration; remanded for document verification and fresh adjudication to determine genuineness.
    Denial of Input Tax Credit was challenged where the supplier's registration was retrospectively cancelled; the petitioner paid through bank and the supplier appeared on records at the time. The High Court remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, directing the appellate authority to reconsider the petitioner's documentary evidence, hold a hearing, and pass a reasoned order verifying genuineness and timing of transactions; if purchases are genuine and occurred prior to cancellation, ITC is to be considered per precedent.
    Act RulesGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit as legislative concession: entitlement subject to statutory conditions, but retrospective deprivation of vested accruals is vulnerable.
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) is a legislative concession, not a vested right, so the legislature may lawfully prescribe eligibility conditions and procedural limits which taxpayers must strictly satisfy; however, retrospective amendments that destroy or diminish an already accrued entitlement are susceptible to challenge and have been treated as impermissible when they impair rights that vested before the amendment.

    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