Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

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

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

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ----
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Jurisdictional Prerequisites for Initiating Reassessment u/s 148: Non-Depoist of TDS by the Employer
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revisiting the Scope of "Record" u/s 263: Embracing Subsequent Records
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Record": Revisiting the Scope of Revision Powers u/s 264 and Rectification of Mistake ...
    The Doctrine of Natural Justice in GST Proceedings: A Case Study on Show Cause Notice u/s 74"
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) and the Concept of "Plant" under GST: Supreme Court
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: High Court's Stance on Quashing Show Cause Notices
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: Upholding the Principles of Natural Justice
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Re-Assessment Notices Issued During COVID-19 Lockdown
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Unraveling the Mineral Rights Regime: The Supreme Court's Landmark Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Assessment Regime: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Evidentiary Value of Statements Recorded During Income Tax Surveys: A Judicial Analysis
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment: Ensuring Compliance with Statutory Provisions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment Mechanism: Jurisdictional Limits in Income Tax Proceedings
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessment Notices for AY 2013-14: Upholding the Doctrine of Limitation
    Principles of Tax Fairness and Mens Rea: Quashes Penalty for Mere Technical Errors
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Decoding the Mandatory Timelines: A Thorough Examination of the Income Tax Assessment Order Nullific...
    Expiry of E-Way Bill AND Mens Rea: Technical Violation Alone Insufficient for Penalty Imposition
    Maintainability of Appeals: High Court Upholds Strict Interpretation of Limitation Provisions in GST...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Stay of Tax Demand: Interpreting the Discretionary Power u/s 220(6) of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Technical Services" under Tax Treaties: A Comprehensive Analysis
❯❯
MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

    +

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

    NOTE:

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

    TMI Notes

    Back

    All TMI Notes

    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
      No Records Found

      TMI Notes

      Back

      All TMI Notes

      whatsappJoin Channel
      Showing Results for : Reset Filters

      Analyzing the Tax Treatment of Collective Entities under Clause 310 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 86 of Income-tax Act, 1961

      21 April, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Clause 310 Share of member of association of persons or body of individuals in income of association or body.

      Income Tax Bill, 2025

      Introduction

      Clause 310 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 and Section 86 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 are statutory provisions that address the taxation of the share of income accruing to a member of an association of persons (AOP) or body of individuals (BOI) from such association or body. These provisions are central to the determination of tax liability in cases where individuals pool resources and carry on activities collectively, a common structure in India's business and investment landscape.

      The legislative intent behind these provisions is to prevent double taxation and to ensure that income arising from collective entities is taxed appropriately, either at the entity level or at the member level, depending on the circumstances. The 2025 Bill seeks to update and potentially streamline these provisions, reflecting evolving policy considerations and perhaps addressing ambiguities or inefficiencies in the existing law.

      Objective and Purpose

      Both Clause 310 and Section 86 aim to allocate tax liability in respect of income arising from AOPs or BOIs in a manner that is equitable and avoids double taxation. The underlying policy is to ensure that income is taxed once-either in the hands of the AOP/BOI or in the hands of its members-but not both. The provisions also take into account situations where the AOP/BOI is taxed at a higher rate (such as the maximum marginal rate), in which case the members should not be taxed again on their respective shares.

      Historically, the Income-tax Act, 1961 has recognized the need for special treatment of AOPs and BOIs, which are not companies or registered societies, but are nevertheless recognized as separate taxable entities. The legislative history of Section 86, including multiple amendments, reflects ongoing efforts to balance the interests of the revenue with the need to avoid unfair double taxation of members.

      Detailed Analysis of Clause 310 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025

      Exemption of Member's Share from Tax

      Clause 310(1) provides that income-tax shall not be payable by an assessee who is a member of an AOP or BOI in respect of his share in the income of the AOP or BOI computed in the manner provided in section 309, except in cases falling under sub-section (2).

      This sub-section establishes the general rule that the share of income accruing to a member from an AOP/BOI is exempt from tax in the hands of the member if tax has already been levied at the entity level. The reference to computation u/s 309 ensures that the share is determined according to prescribed rules, maintaining consistency and fairness.

      Taxability When AOP/BOI Not Taxable

      Clause 310(2) carves out an exception: where no income-tax is chargeable on the total income of the AOP/BOI, the member's share (as computed) shall be chargeable to tax as part of his total income.

      This provision ensures that income does not escape taxation altogether. If, for any reason, the AOP/BOI is not liable to tax (for example, due to exemption or lack of taxable income), the member's share is brought to tax in the hands of the member, plugging a potential loophole.

      Specific Treatment Based on Tax Rate of AOP/BOI

      Clause 310(3) distinguishes between two situations:

      • (a) If the AOP/BOI is chargeable to tax at the maximum marginal rate or any higher rate under any provision of the Act, the member's share shall not be included in his total income.
      • (b) In any other case, the member's share shall form part of his total income.

      Thus, where the entity is taxed at the highest possible rate, the member is relieved from further taxation on his share, reinforcing the principle of single taxation. In other cases (where the AOP/BOI is taxed at a lower rate), the member's share is included in his total income and taxed accordingly, ensuring that revenue leakage is minimized.

      Key Features and Legislative Technique

      Clause 310 is structured to provide clear rules for allocation of tax liability. The provision is methodical, first stating the general rule (exemption), then providing exceptions (when AOP/BOI is not taxed), and finally addressing special situations (taxation at maximum marginal rate).

      Notably, Clause 310 refers to computation u/s 309, which presumably sets out the method for determining the share of income of a member, analogous to section 67A in the 1961 Act.

      Detailed Analysis of Section 86 of the Income-tax Act, 1961

      Scope and Applicability

      Section 86 applies to a member of an AOP or BOI (other than a company, co-operative society, or society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 or corresponding law). The exclusion of companies and registered societies is significant, as these are taxed under separate provisions.

      The section states that income-tax shall not be payable by the assessee in respect of his share in the income of the association or body computed as per section 67A.

      Proviso (a): Exclusion from Total Income if AOP/BOI Taxed at Maximum Marginal Rate

      Where the AOP/BOI is chargeable to tax at the maximum marginal rate or higher, the member's share is not to be included in his total income. This mirrors the policy in Clause 310(3)(a) and is designed to prevent double taxation.

      Proviso (b): Inclusion in Total Income in Other Cases

      In any other case, the member's share is included in his total income. This ensures that where the AOP/BOI is taxed at a concessional or lower rate, the member is not unjustly enriched by the lower entity-level tax and is taxed at personal rates.

      Second Proviso: Taxation When AOP/BOI Not Chargeable to Tax

      Where no income-tax is chargeable on the total income of the AOP/BOI, the member's share is chargeable to tax as part of his total income, and the main section does not apply. This provision is functionally identical to Clause 310(2), ensuring that income is not left untaxed.

      Interpretation and Judicial Guidance

      Section 86 has been the subject of judicial interpretation, with courts emphasizing its role in preventing double taxation and ensuring equitable allocation of tax liability. The computation of the member's share as per section 67A has also been clarified in case law, ensuring that only the appropriate portion of income is attributed to each member.

      Comparative Analysis: Clause 310 vs. Section 86

      Both provisions follow a similar structure:

      • General rule: Member's share not taxable if taxed at AOP/BOI level.
      • Exception: Member's share taxable if AOP/BOI not itself taxed.
      • Special rule: Member's share excluded from total income if AOP/BOI taxed at maximum marginal rate; included otherwise.

      Clause 310, however, slightly reorganizes the sequence of rules, first stating the general exemption, then the exception, and finally the special treatment based on the tax rate. Section 86, in contrast, embeds the special rules in the provisos.

      Substantive Differences and Similarities

      • Scope of Applicability: Section 86 expressly excludes companies and co-operative societies or registered societies from its scope. Clause 310 does not repeat this exclusion in the text provided, but this may be addressed in other clauses of the Bill or in definitions.
      • Reference to Computation: Section 86 refers to computation u/s 67A, while Clause 310 refers to section 309, indicating a renumbering or reorganization in the new Bill.
      • Taxation at Maximum Marginal Rate: Both provisions ensure that where the AOP/BOI is taxed at the highest rate, the member's share is not taxed again, upholding the principle of single taxation.
      • Taxation When AOP/BOI Not Taxable: Both provide that if the AOP/BOI is not taxed, the member's share is taxed in his hands, preventing revenue loss.
      • Sequencing and Clarity: Clause 310 arguably provides greater clarity by separating the exceptions and special cases into distinct sub-sections, potentially making the provision easier to interpret and apply.

      Policy Continuity and Evolution

      The essential policy-avoiding double taxation and ensuring all income is taxed once, at either the entity or member level-is preserved in both provisions. Clause 310 appears to be a restatement and clarification of Section 86, rather than a substantive departure. The reorganization may reflect an effort to modernize and streamline the law, making it more accessible to taxpayers and administrators.

      Practical Implications

      For Members of AOP/BOI

      Members need to determine whether the AOP/BOI is taxed at the entity level and at what rate. If taxed at the maximum marginal rate, they are relieved from further tax on their share. If the entity is not taxed, they must include their share in their own returns. This requires access to information about the AOP/BOI's tax status, which may not always be straightforward, especially for passive investors.

      For AOPs/BOIs

      The provisions incentivize AOPs/BOIs to be transparent in their tax affairs and to communicate their tax status to members. Where the entity is taxed at a lower rate, members may face additional tax at their personal rates, affecting the overall tax efficiency of the structure.

      For Tax Administrators

      Administrators must ensure that income is not taxed twice, nor left untaxed. The need for cross-verification between the returns of AOPs/BOIs and their members imposes an administrative burden. The clarity and sequencing in Clause 310 may assist in reducing disputes and facilitating compliance.

      Compliance and Procedural Aspects

      Members must obtain information about the computation of their share and the tax status of the entity. They may need certificates or statements from the AOP/BOI. Failure to correctly report the share may lead to disputes and penalties.

      Conclusion

      Clause 310 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 represents a continuity and rationalization of the principles enshrined in Section 86 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Both provisions are designed to allocate tax liability in respect of income from AOPs/BOIs in a manner that is fair, equitable, and administratively feasible. The reorganization and clarification in Clause 310 are welcome, as they enhance the accessibility and comprehensibility of the law.

      Going forward, further refinement may be needed in areas such as the definition of AOP/BOI, the treatment of losses, and the mechanics of information sharing between entities and members. Judicial clarification may also be required in cases of ambiguity or unintended consequences. Overall, the provisions reflect a mature and balanced approach to the taxation of collective entities in India.


      Full Text:

      Clause 310 Share of member of association of persons or body of individuals in income of association or body.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax