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
    The Legal Contours of Input Tax Credit Eligibility: Procedural Aspects of GST and ITC
    Case LawsService Tax
    Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM): Service Tax Implications for Exporters: A Legal Perspective on Forei...
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Cheque Dishonour and Corporate Responsibility: Analyzing the Supreme Court's Latest Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Notices / orders without DIN. The Critical Role of Procedural Compliance in Tax Administ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Tax Exemptions: Capitation Fees in Educational Institutions: A Legal Quagmire
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Procedural Technicalities vs. Substantive Justice in Tax Administration: A High Court Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revision u/s 263 and denial of deduction u/s 80IA: A Critical Analysis of the Delhi High Court's Jud...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Condonation of Delay and Jurisdictional Challenges: A Case Analysis of ITAT Kolkata's Decision
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Legal Analysis: Scrutiny of Share Capital and Premium Under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Judicial Scrutiny of Retrospective Cancellation of Charitable Trust Registration: A Case Analysis of...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Office and Prosecution under Income Tax Act: Jurisdiction of Trial Court - Decision in a High Profil...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxation of Unexplained Income at Higher Rate of tax u/s 115BBE : A Comprehensive Analysis of the IT...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Analysis of ITAT Mumbai Judgment - Transfer Pricing Adjustment Dispute: Period of limitation u/s 144...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    In-Depth Analysis of Key Issues in the ITAT Chennai Judgement
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Doctrine of Merger in Income Tax Assessment: An Analysis of ITAT Chennai's Recent Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Delay in refund processing, the petitioner's entitlement to interest, and the court's decision to gr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Rejection of revision application u/s 264 in favor of assessee: A beneficial provision of Income Tax...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    An Analysis of ITAT Decision on International Taxation, Capital Gains, and DTAA
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxability of CSR fund: Treatment of certain funds received by an entity, particularly focusing on w...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Legal Analysis of ESOP Deduction and allowability in the Revised Return of income: An ITAT decision.
❯❯
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
    Input Tax Credit eligibility: procedural limits on reversing claims without supplier inquiry and GSTR-2A non-reflection not dispositive.
    Section 16(2) sets the statutory conditions for Input Tax Credit-tax invoice, receipt, tax payment, and return filing-and GSTR-2A serves only as a facilitator; non-reflection there does not automatically negate eligibility. Tax authorities must inquire into supplier conduct and observe procedural safeguards before reversing ITC or recovering tax from the recipient, with judicial precedents and CBIC clarifications shaping when exceptions may apply.
    Case LawsService Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reverse charge mechanism: exporter not liable for foreign bank charges when Indian bank is the direct service recipient.
    The core issue is whether an exporter is liable under the Reverse Charge Mechanism for foreign bank charges deducted from export proceeds when those charges are imposed on and paid by an Indian intermediary bank. The Tribunal's analysis focuses on the definition of service recipient and territorial scope, concluding that the direct recipient-the Indian bank-is the party liable to discharge service tax while the exporter, as an indirect beneficiary without direct dealings with the foreign bank, is not subject to reverse charge.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Directorial liability: strict averment requirement prevents presuming directors' responsibility without specific allegation, leading to quashing.
    The Court held that directorial liability requires specific averment that the director was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the time of the offence; mere titular position or awareness of cheque issuance is insufficient. It emphasized the necessity of serving the statutory notice prerequisite and rejected liberal construction to cure absent statutory averments, quashing proceedings against directors for non-compliance.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    DIN requirement in tax administration: absence of mandatory DIN can invalidate assessment orders unless exceptional circumstances apply.
    Failure to quote the mandatory computer-generated Document Identification Number (DIN) in assessment orders, as required by the CBDT Circular from 1 October 2019, constitutes a procedural defect that can render the order invalid unless the revenue demonstrates that the issuance fell within the Circular's narrowly drawn exceptional circumstances; the Tribunal found such non-compliance in the order dated 15 October 2019 and the High Court affirmed, while the Supreme Court granted interim stay for further consideration.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Capitation fee allegations challenge admissibility and attribution of seized evidence in charitable trust tax exemption inquiries.
    Alleged collection of capitation fees by a registered charitable trust threatens its exemption under Section 11; most evidence was seized from employees' residences, invoking the presumption under Section 132(4A) and raising attribution issues. Employee admissions later retracted, similar statement drafting, declarations under the Income Declaration Scheme 2016, and trustees' acknowledgments create contradictory evidentiary threads that complicate admissibility, credibility, and whether the seized funds can be treated as trust income.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay in tax compliance: liberal interpretation protects bona fide taxpayers from technical disqualification.
    The court analysed whether delay in filing Form 10 could be condoned, considering the petitioner's unawareness of post 2016 amendments, CBDT circulars and precedent, and applying principles that each case be judged on its facts; it stressed that failure to claim accumulation does not by itself show absence of intent to comply and urged a liberal approach to mitigate genuine hardship and prevent procedural technicalities from defeating substantive justice.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Section 263 limited to substantial legal errors; mere differences of opinion don't justify revisional tax action.
    Scope of Section 263 is confined to instances where an assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to revenue in a substantial way, not mere differences of opinion. Migration of licences from IP VPN to NLD ILD does not, by itself, create a new undertaking defeating entitlement to deduction under Section 80IA(4)(ii), particularly where identical deductions were previously allowed; administrative migration requires clear proof of substantive change before re characterising eligibility.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Delay condonation based on sufficient cause upheld where illness, relocation and pandemic disruption justified late filing and jurisdictional challenge.
    The tribunal applied a purposive construction of sufficient cause to condone substantial delay where cumulative factors-serious illness, change of residence and pandemic disruption-made filing untimely. It also found the assessment infirm for want of territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction because the taxpayer had established residence and filing history in a different territorial unit and administrative guidance allocated jurisdiction accordingly, underscoring that proper vesting of authority is a condition precedent to valid assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Unexplained cash credits under Section 68 require taxpayers to prove investor identity and genuineness; authorities must rebut with evidence.
    Applicability of Section 68 requires the assessee to establish investor identity, creditworthiness and transaction genuineness-via PAN, tax returns, audited accounts and bank statements-and once this initial burden is satisfied, the burden shifts to the revenue to rebut with concrete evidence; mere suspicion or inability to trace an ultimate source does not alone justify additions if investments are reasonable relative to investors' net worth and effected through banking channels.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Retrospective cancellation of charitable trust registration invalidated due to lack of competent jurisdiction and procedural non compliance.
    The Tribunal invalidated the cancellation of a charitable trust's registration because the regional authority lacked competence to cancel under the statutory scheme and the transfer used to reassign the matter was improper; it further held that applying the newer cancellation provision retrospectively to deprive the trust of its recognized status was not legally tenable, emphasizing required notice, hearing and adherence to principled statutory interpretation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdiction in multi locational offences governs venue determination; magistrate discretion and supervisory thresholds shape tax prosecution forums under criminal procedure.
    The judgment analyses Cr.P.C. place of offence principles in multi locational tax prosecutions, assessing whether procedural acts like recording statements under the Income Tax Act determine venue. It evaluates the magistrate's discretion in taking cognizance where alleged offences span jurisdictions and outlines the threshold for superior court supervisory intervention, emphasising that extraordinary petitions require demonstration of abuse of process or exceptional circumstances before altering magistrate venue determinations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Taxation of unexplained income: higher-rate treatment applies, and deductions including partner salary are disallowed.
    The tribunal held that excess unrecorded stock and cash found on survey were assessable as unexplained investment and unexplained money, and that the special higher-rate taxation provision applies to such income, taxing it at a higher fixed rate and disallowing any deduction; consequently the claimed partner's salary relating to the unexplained investment was disallowed.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation under section 144C: assessment issued beyond statutory period, leaving transfer pricing adjustment unresolved on procedural grounds.
    The tribunal focused on the statutory time limit under Section 144C(13) for passing assessment orders after DRP directions, treated the order as barred by limitation and therefore did not adjudicate substantive transfer pricing challenges raised under Section 92CA. Consequently, technical disputes over comparability, exclusion/inclusion of comparables, and the profit level indicator computation were left unexamined.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Capitalization of interest: tribunal scrutinised whether interest and forex on capital projects form capital cost or permit revenue deduction.
    The tribunal analyzed four core taxation questions: whether interest and foreign exchange fluctuations written off from Capital Work in Progress are capital or revenue in nature and their nexus to business operations; whether write off of a DG set component should be treated within the block of assets for depreciation or as a revenue repair; the applicability of Section 36(1)(iii) to proportionate interest on interest free advances to related concerns and the presumption from mixed funds; and the evidentiary requirements to establish that inter corporate deposits were funded from own funds rather than borrowed monies for interest deduction purposes.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Doctrine of merger limits revisional jurisdiction under appeals, preventing collateral review of identical legal issues.
    The Doctrine of Merger operates to treat legal issues from an assessment as merged into appeal proceedings before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), thereby constraining subsequent revisional jurisdiction over those same issues; applied where initial assessment, reassessment notices and search-related assessment steps overlap, and supported by judicial precedent limiting collateral revision.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Interest on delayed tax refunds where delay is not attributable to the taxpayer under Section 244A.
    Entitlement to interest under Section 244A arises when refund payment is delayed for reasons not attributable to the assessee. The petitioner, a foreign company, faced delays caused by technical issues and incorrect guidance regarding banking details; the court treated the delay as the respondents' responsibility and applied Section 244A to award interest for the period of delay, directing payment according to the statutory rate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revision application under Section 264: remand for fresh merits review when alternative remedies were improperly relied upon.
    Whether a revision under Section 264 may be denied solely because alternative remedies existed and whether appeal provisions applied to DDT-related treaty claims; the court found that rejecting revision on the mere availability of other remedies was untenable and that the appealed provision was inapplicable, directing fresh merits consideration of treaty relief and related tax computation by the Principal Commissioner.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    DTAA interpretation clarifies capital gains tax treatment for cross-border share sales under residency and grandfathering conditions.
    Taxation of capital gains from a Mauritius-based entity's sale of Indian company shares is analysed against the India-Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, focusing on DTAA allocation of taxing rights, timing of acquisition and transfer, and applicability of grandfathering provisions. The Tribunal assessed tax residency and treaty entitlement by examining corporate structure and commercial substance, applying the substance over form principle to determine whether treaty benefits were appropriate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Fiduciary funds not treated as taxable income when entity acts as facilitator; earmarked project funds excluded from income.
    The Tribunal examined whether earmarked receipts should be included in taxable income or treated on the balance sheet, focusing on jurisdictional validity of scrutiny notices, whether amounts were routed through the income and expenditure account or retained as earmarked funds, and whether receipts held in a fiduciary capacity for disaster relief were excluded from the entity's income because the entity acted only as facilitator without beneficial ownership.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    ESOP deduction in revised returns - tribunal permits claim within revision window, stressing valuation, timing and documentary consistency.
    Deductibility of ESOP-related costs in a revised return hinges on compliance with the statutory time limit for revision and on accounting and evidentiary consistency: correct year of recognition, reliable grant date valuation (e.g., Black Scholes), concordant employee records, and disclosure in audited accounts. The tribunal found the claim allowable within the revision window but emphasised documentary proof, valuation method and timing of liability as central to acceptability.

    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