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
    Interpreting "Or": The Disjunctive Mandate for Personal Hearing in Tax Matters
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Registration Process u/s 80G: Insights from the ITAT Ruling
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Ensuring Fair Proceedings: The Importance of Proper Notice Service in Income Tax Matters
    Demarcating Authority: High Court Clarifies Jurisdictional Limits of GST Officers
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Unraveling the Royalty Conundrum and DTAA: ITAT's Stance on Marketing and Reservation Fees
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Royalty or Not? Decoding the Taxability of Marketing and Reservation Contributions under India-USA D...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Unraveling the Intricacies: Assessing a Political Party's Claim for Income Tax Exemption
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Bogus Capital Gains and Accommodation Entries: Unraveling the Penny Stock Scam and Tax Evasion
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Strict Interpretation of Exemption Provisions: Supreme Court's Ruling on Section 10B(8) of the Incom...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance u/s 14A: Prospective or Retrospective Effect of the Amendment?
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of "Charitable Purpose" in Income Tax Exemptions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Cooperative Banks vs. Primary Agricultural Credit Societies: Implications for Section 80P Deduction
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Exemption u/s 11: Condonation of Delay in Filing Form 10
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting Section 249(4)(b) of the Income Tax Act: When Non-Payment of Advance Tax Cannot Dismiss...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Retrospective Amendments and the Doctrine of Vested Rights: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Upholding Equality: HC Strikes Down Discriminatory Circular on Charitable Trust Approvals
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Judicial Review of Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) Orders: Navigating the Boundaries
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Assessee's Lackadaisical Conduct Leads to Dismissal of Income Tax Appeal
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Appeal Scheme: Lessons from the Judgement on Delayed Filing and Deduction u/...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Unraveling the Maze of Round-Tripping: The Doctrine of "Source of Source" in Share Capital Transacti...
❯❯
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 LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Personal hearing mandate in tax proceedings: failure to afford hearing requires reconsideration and a reasoned decision.
    Section 75(4) of the UPGST Act mandates that an opportunity for personal hearing be granted either upon a written request by the person chargeable with tax or penalty or whenever an adverse decision is contemplated; the disjunctive word "or" must be given its plain meaning, creating independent triggers for the hearing obligation. The court concluded the authorities failed to comply with this requirement and directed that a personal hearing be afforded and a reasoned order issued thereafter to ensure procedural fairness in tax adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Section 80G registration: provisional approval permits subsequent final registration, with commencement dated from provisional grant.
    The tribunal construed the proviso-based registration mechanism to permit institutions granted provisional approval to apply for final registration, counting the date of commencement of activities from the grant of provisional approval; administrative circulars extending renewal deadlines apply to specified renewal applications and do not curtail the availability of final registration for provisionally approved institutions, while a view excluding applicants who commenced activities prior to provisional approval was considered inconsistent with the proviso scheme.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Proper service of notice: portal-only publication cannot substitute direct communication and mandates a fresh hearing.
    Proper service of notice in income tax proceedings is essential to safeguard the right to be heard and facets of natural justice. Placing notices on an electronic portal without direct communication does not, by itself, satisfy statutory methods of service, and cannot be presumed to give the taxpayer effective notice. Where service in terms of the Act and Rules is not shown, affected parties are entitled to a fair opportunity to file replies and be heard, and the tax administration must provide a fresh hearing and issue an independent speaking order after considering the reply.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdictional limits of GST officers: no proceedings against assessees assigned to counterpart authority absent cross-empowerment notification.
    The judgement clarifies that appointment and delegation of powers under the Central and State GST regimes are confined to officers appointed under each statute, and that assessees allocated administratively to Central or State authorities may be lawfully proceeded against only by those authorities unless a formal cross-empowerment notification permits otherwise; no general cross-empowerment notification exists except for limited refund purposes.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Taxability of marketing contributions: non taxable where receipts are fiduciary and subject to mutuality, not royalty.
    Where receipts from hotels are received with a corresponding obligation to expend them for agreed common purposes and are held in a fiduciary capacity, such marketing contributions, reward program receipts, reservation contributions and central reservation system fees are not consideration for use of intellectual property or fees for technical services and thus do not qualify as royalty or fees for included services under the India-US DTAA, particularly in the absence of a permanent establishment and where coordinate precedent on identical facts supports non taxability under the principle of mutuality.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Royalty characterization: marketing and reservation contributions treated as non-royalty under DTAA when tied to agreed-use obligations.
    Whether marketing and reservation contributions from Indian hotels to a US company qualify as Royalty or Fees for Included Services under the India-USA DTAA turns on their substantive nature: the presence of a corresponding contractual obligation to apply funds for agreed marketing, advertising and reservation activities and supporting auditor evidence indicates such receipts are not consideration for making available intellectual property or technical services, distinguishing them from factual scenarios where contributions increase brand value or transfer intangible know how.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Section 13A compliance: failure to meet proviso conditions bars political party exemption and informs stay assessment approach.
    A registered political party's claim of exemption under Section 13A was rejected for failure to meet proviso conditions, including receipt of donations in breach of the cash donation prohibition; the tribunal treated non exempt voluntary contributions as income from other sources, disallowing deductions; allegations of mala fides were dismissed due to the party's procedural delays; and the tribunal's prima facie framework for stay applications-assessing merits, undue hardship, and likelihood of success-was upheld, with liberty to apply afresh to the tribunal given changed circumstances.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Burden of Proof under section sixty eight: genuineness of share transactions must be established or treated as accommodation entries.
    The dispute concerned alleged bogus long term capital gains from penny stock trading characterised as an accommodation entry; revenue contested genuineness, identity and creditworthiness of parties while assessees relied on expert and market information. Applying the doctrine of preponderance of probabilities, the court reiterated that the initial burden to prove identity and genuineness lies with the assessee, criticised inadequate enquiries by authorities, rejected expert and media reliance as a substitute for due diligence, and described the accommodation entry modus operandi leading to findings that the transactions were not satisfactorily proved.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Strict compliance with exemption conditions: declaration and filing deadline mandatory; revised returns cannot introduce new exemption claims.
    The Court held that both conditions for claiming the exemption-furnishing a written declaration to the assessing officer and submitting it before the due date for the original return-are mandatory and must be strictly complied with. It rejected treating the time limit as directory, distinguished deduction-related authorities, and held that a revised return cannot introduce new exemption claims or claim carry-forward benefits not made in the original return.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Retrospectivity of tax amendment: amendment held prospective; prior rule barring disallowance where no exempt income applies.
    The court held that the Finance Act amendment described as "for removal of doubts" cannot be given retrospective effect where it alters prior law; the Finance Bill memorandum fixing commencement determined prospectivity, and existing Division Bench precedent that no disallowance can be made if no exempt income was earned was applied, subject to the ultimate outcome of the pending higher court challenge.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Charitable purpose clarified: statutory public bodies generally exempt; commercial receipts taxed under quantitative proviso, with annual scrutiny required.
    The judgement narrows the scope of charitable purpose under Section 2(15) by treating statutory public utility bodies as generally exempt while excluding income from commercial activities beyond core regulatory or public-interest functions. Trade-promotion and non-statutory bodies may qualify if charges are nominal, but ancillary fee-generating services and high-fee providers produce taxable commercial receipts. Private trusts' advertisement income is commercial. Assessing authorities must perform yearly scrutiny and apply the proviso's quantitative limits to determine exemption eligibility.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Deduction 80P eligibility turns on whether a cooperative society's banking status classifies it as a cooperative bank; AO to verify.
    A cooperative society carrying on deposit-taking and lending, issuing cheques and providing banking services may fall within the banking business definition under the Banking Regulation Act; whether it qualifies as a cooperative bank under that Act-affected by its bye-laws and membership rules-must be determined by fact-specific examination to decide entitlement to the cooperative deduction.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of Delay in Filing Form Ten: reasonable professional oversight accepted, delay condoned and rectification allowed.
    Condonation of delay in filing Form Ten was granted where the auditor's bona fide oversight-reporting accumulation in the audit report (Form Ten B) and misconstruing separate filing requirements-led to a 361 day delay; the court found the lapse inadvertent amid pandemic conditions, accepted the explanation, quashed the refusal order and permitted rectification steps, treating the delay as condoned.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Advance tax obligation: absence of taxable income prevents dismissal of appeal for non-payment of advance tax.
    The Tribunal held that the advance tax payment condition for appeal maintainability applies only when the assessee had a legal obligation to compute and pay advance tax; in the absence of taxable income no such obligation exists, and an appeal cannot be dismissed solely for non-payment of advance tax. The Tribunal directed that the matter proceed to merits with an opportunity to be heard, stressing that the payment requirement must be applied in light of factual circumstances.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Vested rights preserved against retrospective tax amendments; filings made before enactment remain effective for settlement consideration.
    The court addressed whether a retrospective Finance Act amendment prohibiting settlement applications from a specified date could divest a taxpayer who filed earlier of its vested right to have the application considered. It held that retrospective legislation cannot take away rights already accrued by actions completed before enactment unless clearly intended; that section 119 confers time-extension power but cannot impose new substantive eligibility conditions; and that administrative delay by revenue does not justify denying access where an application was already filed.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reasonable classification principle: differential deadline for charitable trust tax recognition cannot lack rational basis or equality protection.
    A departmental circular extended a filing deadline for tax recognition to mitigate hardship but excluded newly formed charitable trusts without offering reasons; the exclusion lacked an intelligible differentia and rational nexus to the circular's object, making the differential treatment arbitrary and ultra vires the constitutional guarantee of equality, requiring the excluded applications to be treated as within time and decided on merits.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    ITSC jurisdiction extends beyond application disclosures, while full and true disclosure and narrow judicial review govern settlement oversight.
    The Income Tax Settlement Commission may inquire into and decide issues disclosed in the application and any other matters relating to the case as reflected in the Commissioner's report or uncovered by further inquiry; full and true disclosure is mandatory and amendments or contradictory positions that undermine that requirement are impermissible, yet contesting taxability before the Commission does not automatically negate disclosure; judicial review is limited to statutory contravention, prejudice, fraud, bias or malice, while sufficiency of materials placed before the Commission is generally beyond routine court scrutiny.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Delay condonation denied where litigant's evasive conduct and non participation failed to constitute sufficient cause for appeal filing.
    The court refused condonation of delay for filing an appeal where a best judgment assessment treated cash bank deposits as unexplained after the assessee failed to file returns or participate in proceedings; reliance on transition to a faceless e filing regime and lack of alerts was held insufficient, as the assessee's evasive and habitual non participation did not amount to sufficient cause warranting condonation under the applicable doctrine.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Sufficient cause for delay in filing appeals rejected where faceless scheme migration did not excuse prolonged inaction.
    The court held that migration to a faceless appeal system did not, without persuasive evidence, constitute sufficient cause to condone a lengthy delay in filing an appeal, finding the explanation reflective of litigant inaction rather than unavoidable impediment. On tax deduction, the court applied authority that a non-obstante clause does not negate the employer's obligation to deposit employees' statutory contributions by the due date as a condition for claiming the deduction, and treated the appeal as meritless and barred by limitation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Source of source doctrine used to pierce the corporate veil where share capital appears round tripped among related entities.
    The assessee must prove identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of investors under section 68; examination extends to the true origin of funds where bank records show circular transfers, related party directorships, lack of business operations, and arbitrary share premium, permitting lifting the corporate veil and application of the source of source doctrine to treat such receipts as not satisfactorily explained.

    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