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
    Upholding the Transfer of Assessment Proceedings u/s 127: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsService Tax
    Navigating the Taxation Labyrinth: The Supreme Court's Guidance on Transfer of Right to Use Goods
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Supreme Court Upholds Forfeiture of Earnest-Money Deposits under SARFAESI Rules
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    The Generality vs. Enumeration Principle: A Key to Interpreting Delegated Rule-Making Power: Validit...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Share Premium Addition u/s 68: Demystifying Share Premium Transactions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Intricacies of Income Tax Penalty u/s 271(1)(c): Fairness in Tax Administration
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Ensuring Fair Procedure before declaring Fraud in Bank Loan: Providing Relevant Documents and Opport...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Scope and Limitations under Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of Search and Seizure Assessments: Unraveling the Intricacies of Section...
    Decoding the Judgement: Navigating the Complexities of ITC Eligibility under the GST Regime
    Excess stock found during survey: Navigating the Intricacies of UPGST / CGST Act and Invoking Wrong ...
    Striking a Balance: Judicial Interpretation of GST Provisions on Record-Keeping and Penalties
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Interim Orders and the Limits of Article 142: Safeguarding Natural Justice Balancing Judicial Powers...
    Upholding Fairness and Transparency in Insolvency Resolution: A Landmark Judgment on the IBC
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Supreme Court Clarifies Vicarious Liability of Directors in Cheque Dishonour Cases
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Interim Compensation in Cheque Dishonor Cases: Discretion and Due Process, Scope of the word "May"
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Unraveling the Principles of Delay Condonation: A Comprehensive Analysis by the Supreme Court
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting Section 80G Provisions: ITAT's Stance on Charitable Institution Registration
    Case LawsCustoms
    Monetary Limits for Filing Appeals: Analyzing the CESTAT Judgment on Binding Nature of CBIC Instruct...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting the Scope and Limits of Sections 153A and 153C: A Judicial Perspective
❯❯
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
    Transfer of assessment proceedings for coordinated investigations and administrative convenience upheld where procedural safeguards and factual links exist.
    The judgment explains that transfers of assessment proceedings pursuant to the statutory transfer power may be justified for coordinated enquiries and administrative convenience, provided the decision is not capricious or mala fide. Authorities must afford an opportunity to be heard and consider objections; where factual indicia exist - for example, disclosed transactions such as unsecured loans with searched persons - centralisation can be sustained. The convenience of the assessee is relevant but subservient to effective adjudication and tax collection, and transfers supported by procedural compliance and factual nexus are not arbitrary.
    Case LawsService Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Transfer of right to use goods: contracts retaining operational control are service arrangements, not deemed sales under VAT.
    The issue is whether supply agreements for cranes, trailers and tank trucks amount to a transfer of the right to use goods under the deemed sale provision. Applying the five BSNL tests-availability of goods, consensus on identity, transferee's legal right to use, exclusivity of use, and non transferability by owner-the contracts failed to meet the criteria. Contractors retained possession, crew, fuel, maintenance and liability, and transferees had only permissive use without effective control, so the arrangements were services, not deemed sales under VAT/sales tax.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Forfeiture of earnest-money deposits under SARFAESI rules stands as a statutory consequence, limiting equitable intervention.
    The analysis affirms that Rule 9(5) of the SARFAESI Rules prescribes an express statutory forfeiture of earnest-money deposits arising from auction terms, and that Sections 73 and 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, addressing contractual damages, do not apply to such statutory forfeitures. Unjust enrichment and equitable considerations cannot supplant a clear statutory forfeiture, and subsequent recovery by the secured creditor does not negate the forfeiture, except in narrowly defined exceptional circumstances where equity may justify relief.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Generality vs. enumeration principle affirms broad delegated rule making power, upholding rules that further an Act's statutory purposes.
    The Court held that Rule 9(3) is intra vires because the general delegated rule making power in section 29A(1) authorises rules that carry out the Act's purposes even when not covered by enumerated heads. Applying the generality vs. enumeration principle, the Court found the enumerated matters in section 29A(2) illustrative and not restrictive, and concluded Rule 9(3) furthers the misconduct chapter's object of maintaining ethical standards and preventing wrongful threshold dismissal of genuine complaints.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Burden of proof in share premium cases: failure to prove investor identity and genuineness sustains addition under section 68.
    The assessment of share premium under section 68 requires the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of investors who subscribe at a premium. The court scrutinised disparate allotments made on consecutive days, examined subscribing companies' financials, and applied the doctrine of "source of source" restrictively, holding that incorporation papers or bank payments alone do not discharge the burden. Absent cogent evidence tracing funds to lawful origin and demonstrating commercial rationale for large premiums, additions under section 68 are supportable.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Strict construction of penalty provisions prevents penalty where taxpayer disclosed omitted income before assessment notice.
    The legal focal point is whether Section 271(1)(c) can be invoked where an assessee disclosed omitted income and paid differential tax before initiation of reassessment. Penal provisions require strict construction, and Explanation 1 treats a pre-notice satisfactory explanation and admission of additional income as accepted, precluding characterization as concealment. Additionally, a penalty notice must specify the particular ground for proceeding; failure to do so renders the notice defective and undermines the basis for penalty.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Right to be heard: affected parties must receive documents underlying fraud allegations and be allowed inspection and rebuttal.
    Classification of a loan account as fraud invokes the Principles of Natural Justice, requiring disclosure of the documents forming the basis of a Show Cause Notice and inspection access to bank and Resolution Professional records so the affected party can identify required documents, receive copies, and submit a meaningful reply within specified timelines, with scope to request a personal hearing.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Scope of reassessment: AO may address newly noticed income but remains constrained by the recorded reasons for reopening.
    Where the AO has recorded reasons to believe income escaped assessment, the AO may assess or reassess issues that come to notice during reassessment, but if no additions or modifications are ultimately made in respect of the issues that formed the basis for reopening, the AO cannot make additions or modifications relating solely to other matters that were part of the original assessment. Explanation 3 applies only after reassessment power is validly invoked and cannot be used to deviate from or supplant the recorded reasons.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Corroboration requirement for search statements: unsupported search statements cannot sustain additions without linked incriminating material and fair cross examination.
    Additions for alleged accommodation entries cannot rest solely on statements recorded during search operations; such statements require corroboration by material found in the search that is specifically linked to the assessee. The assessing officer must articulate a factual nexus between seized group material and the assessee, and procedural fairness-including provision of relevant statements and opportunity for cross-examination-is essential. Cure provisions do not validate jurisdictional defects arising from absence of requisite notice or lack of incriminating material.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit eligibility clarified: refund for unutilised ITC limited to inverted duty where input goods tax exceeds output supplies.
    The court construes Section 54(3) narrowly: refund of unutilised ITC for inverted duty arises only where tax on input goods exceeds tax on output supplies. It upholds the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) and Section 16(4), confirms that ITC is subject to legislatively prescribed conditions and time limits, and clarifies that the non-obstante clause in Section 16(2) does not override separate restrictions such as Section 16(4). Affected petitioners may invoke circulars and have eligible ITC claims processed where returns met the prescribed extended filing position.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Determination of tax on unaccounted stock must proceed under Sections 73 and 74, not Section 130.
    The Court held that tax determination for excess or unaccounted stock discovered in a survey must proceed under the statutory assessment procedures for undisclosed goods rather than by invoking the survey provision. The assessment code prescribes the exclusive mechanism for quantifying and demanding tax, and survey powers cannot be used to supplant the prescribed steps for computation, notice and imposition of tax or penalty on unaccounted goods.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Record-keeping obligations: failure attracts a capped statutory penalty and invalidates arbitrary confiscation without due process.
    The judgment emphasises that registered persons must maintain prescribed books and electronic records under Section 35 and related rules, and that any determination of tax on unaccounted goods must follow the show cause procedures for assessing tax liability. It finds that conditions for confiscation under Section 130 were not met and that penalties must be imposed in accordance with the statutory bifurcation in Section 122, with the offences in question attracting only the capped penalty, thereby underscoring procedural limits on enforcement powers.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Limits on Article 142: extraordinary power cannot automatically vacate interim stays; natural justice and supervisory jurisdiction must be preserved.
    Limits on the Supreme Court's extraordinary jurisdiction were defined to prevent blanket, time based vacation of interim stays; equitable power cannot deprive non parties of substantive benefits or negate the right to be heard. The Court confined vacation rules to cases where interim relief was granted without notice, instructed High Courts to grant limited ad interim relief, prioritise vacation applications, avoid routine time bound disposal directives, and recognised that past automatic vacations that led to concluded trials raise finality concerns while endorsing judicial superintendence and natural justice as constitutional constraints.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Insolvency plan compliance: failure to acknowledge creditor claims or secure approvals undermines approved resolution plans.
    The court held that a recall application grounded in lack of notice and alleged misrepresentation is maintainable under principles of natural justice. It found the resolution plan non-compliant with Section 30(2) read with Regulations 37 and 38-specifically for failing to acknowledge a creditor's claim, misrecording the payable amount, omitting secured creditor classification despite a charge, and proposing use of third-party statutory land without necessary approvals-deficiencies that materially affected the plan's transparency and treatment of creditor classes.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Vicarious liability of directors clarified: specific averments required to link a director to company affairs before liability attaches.
    The Court held that vicarious liability of a director in cheque dishonour cases cannot be invoked by merely reproducing statutory language or alleging directorship; complaints must contain specific factual averments showing how the director was responsible for or in charge of the company's day to day affairs to link the director to issuance or dishonour of negotiable instruments.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Interim compensation discretion: courts must prima facie assess claims and defences before ordering payment under Section 143A.
    The Court interpreted Section 143A(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act as conferring a discretionary power to order interim compensation, holding that the word "may" cannot be read as mandatory. Courts must prima facie assess the complainant's case and the accused's defence; the presumption under section 139 alone does not suffice. Interim compensation may be directed only when a prima facie case is established, with the quantum determined after considering transaction nature, parties' relationship, and the accused's paying capacity, and brief reasons must be recorded.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay: courts require sufficient cause, balancing strict limitation rules with liberal remedial discretion.
    Principles of condonation of delay require balancing the Limitation Act's public policy against stale litigation: Section 3 is to be strictly interpreted while Section 5 is to be construed liberally to allow judicial discretion where sufficient cause is shown. Discretion remains limited by considerations such as inordinate delay, negligence, and lack of due diligence, and prior decisions granting condonation do not automatically justify relief unless the factual matrices are substantially similar.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Registration under Section 80G: provisional approval permits subsequent final registration regardless of prior commencement of activities.
    The Tribunal held that institutions granted provisional approval under the First Proviso to Section 80G(5) are entitled to apply for final registration under the proviso's final-registration clause, and that the relevant date of commencement is to be counted from activities undertaken after grant of provisional registration; a prior commencement of activities before provisional grant cannot alone justify rejection of a final-approval application.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Binding nature of departmental instructions vs natural justice: tribunals may prioritize procedural fairness over monetary thresholds.
    The CESTAT held that CBIC instructions bind departmental officers but do not bind courts and tribunals, which must safeguard natural justice. The Tribunal found the appellate order defective for failing to remit valuation reassessment to the proper officer as statutorily required, treated related Bills of Entry as a single transaction for monetary limit calculation, and invoked its procedural power to hear departmental appeals on merits despite the Board's monetary threshold.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Search assessment provisions under Sections 153A and 153C override ordinary reassessment time limits; asset-threshold verification required.
    The judgment holds that search-triggered assessment provisions function as non-obstante clauses displacing ordinary reassessment time limits, distinguishes the enduring liability to tax from the temporal right to assess, prescribes that block periods are computed from the year of search (or date of receipt of seized records for non-searched persons), and treats the asset-represented income threshold as a mandatory, aggregable precondition requiring the assessing officer's recorded satisfaction.

    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

      The Structure and Implications of Income Tax Rebates : Clause 155 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 87 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

      22 April, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Clause 155 Rebate to be allowed in computing income-tax.

      Income Tax Bill, 2025

      Introduction

      Rebates and reliefs in income tax computation have long served as essential tools in tax policy, promoting equity, incentivizing specific behaviors, and providing targeted relief to taxpayers. Clause 155 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, and Section 87 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, both address the allowance of rebates in the computation of income tax. However, they do so in the context of their respective legislative frameworks, reflecting both continuity and evolution in India's approach to tax relief.

      This commentary provides a detailed analysis of Clause 155 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, interpreting its provisions, legislative intent, and practical implications. It then undertakes a comprehensive comparative analysis with the existing Section 87 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, examining similarities, differences, and the broader significance of the proposed changes. The analysis concludes with key takeaways and suggestions for future consideration.

      Objective and Purpose

      The primary objective of Clause 155 is to provide a statutory mechanism for the allowance of rebates in the computation of income tax, thereby reducing the effective tax burden on eligible taxpayers. Historically, such provisions have aimed to:

      • Ensure tax equity by recognizing the need for relief in specific situations or for particular classes of taxpayers.
      • Encourage compliance and reduce hardship by offering targeted deductions from the computed tax liability.
      • Incorporate policy-driven incentives, such as relief for lower-income individuals or for investments in specified sectors.

      Section 87 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has served a similar purpose, providing the legislative basis for various rebates and reliefs over the decades. Its structure and periodic amendments reflect changing policy priorities, administrative considerations, and the evolving landscape of tax law in India.

      Detailed Analysis of Clause 155 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025

      Mechanism of Allowing Rebates - Sub-clause (1) establishes the basic mechanism for allowing rebates (deductions) from the income tax computed on the total income of the assessee for a given tax year. The critical features are:

      • Timing of Deduction: The rebate is to be allowed "from income-tax (as computed before allowing the deductions under this Chapter)", ensuring that the computation of tax precedes the application of rebates, and that rebates are not compounded with other deductions.
      • Reference to Section 156: The provision is expressly made "subject to the provisions of section 156", indicating that the specific conditions, limits, or types of rebates are detailed in that subsequent section. This structure mirrors the approach of delegating the substantive content of rebates to a specific provision.
      • Scope of Application: The clause applies to "any tax year", making it of general application rather than being limited to specific years or circumstances.

      Limitation on Quantum of Rebate - Sub-clause (2) provides a ceiling on the aggregate amount of deduction u/s 156. It states that the deduction "shall not, in any case, exceed income-tax (as computed before allowing the deductions under this Chapter) on the total income of the assessee". This ensures:

      • No Negative Tax: The rebate cannot result in a negative tax liability; the maximum relief is capped at the actual tax computed before rebates.
      • Administrative Clarity: The provision avoids confusion that could arise if rebates exceeded tax liability, thereby maintaining the integrity of the tax computation process.

      Reference to Section 156

      Clause 155 refers to section 156 for the specifics of the deductions (rebates). This cross-reference is a legislative technique to separate the general enabling provision (Clause 155) from the detailed operational rules (Section 156), allowing greater flexibility in amending rebate schemes without altering the core structure.

      Legislative Intent and Policy Considerations

      The legislative intent behind Clause 155 appears to be:

      • Codification and Clarity: By providing a clear statutory basis for rebates, the clause aims to enhance transparency and certainty for taxpayers and administrators.
      • Flexibility: Delegating the specifics of rebates to another section allows for responsive policy changes through amendments to Section 156, without the need to alter the foundational provision.
      • Equity and Relief: The provision continues the long-standing policy of providing targeted relief to taxpayers, especially those in lower income brackets or with specific qualifying circumstances.

      Ambiguities and Potential Issues

      While Clause 155 is broadly clear, certain potential issues may arise:

      • Dependence on Section 156: The actual relief available is entirely dependent on the content of Section 156, which may change over time and could introduce uncertainty if not clearly drafted.
      • Definition of "Tax Year": The shift from "assessment year" (used in Section 87) to "tax year" may require clarification to avoid interpretative disputes, especially in transitional provisions.
      • Interaction with Other Reliefs: The clause does not elaborate on how it interacts with other chapters or forms of relief, which may necessitate further guidance or cross-references.

      Practical Implications

      The practical impact of Clause 155 will depend on the specific rebates detailed in Section 156. However, some general implications can be identified:

      • For Taxpayers: Eligible taxpayers will continue to benefit from statutory rebates, reducing their effective tax liability. The clarity and structure of the provision may make it easier to understand eligibility and quantum of relief.
      • For Tax Administrators: The provision provides a clear legal basis for granting rebates, facilitating consistent administration and reducing disputes.
      • For Policymakers: The separation between the enabling provision and the operational details allows for more agile policy responses, adapting rebate schemes to economic or social objectives as needed.

      Comparative Analysis with Section 87 of the Income-tax Act, 1961

      Key Similarities

      • Purpose: Both provisions serve to allow rebates from the computed income tax, reducing the tax burden in accordance with specified conditions.
      • Structure: Both use a two-part structure: an enabling clause allowing rebates, and a limitation clause capping the rebate at the amount of computed tax.
      • Sequence of Computation: In both, the rebate is allowed from the tax computed before the application of deductions under the relevant chapter, ensuring proper sequencing.
      • Reference to Subordinate Provisions: Both refer to other sections (Section 156 in Clause 155; Sections 87A and 88E in Section 87) for the substantive content of the rebates.

      Key Differences

      • Terminology: Section 87 uses "assessment year", while Clause 155 uses "tax year". This may reflect an attempt to modernize or harmonize terminology, but could have implications for interpretation, especially during transition periods.
      • Reference to Specific Sections: Section 87 refers specifically to sections 87A and 88E (and formerly to a wider range of sections), whereas Clause 155 generically refers to Section 156. This streamlines the provision and may allow greater flexibility in future amendments.
      • Legislative Drafting Style: Clause 155 is more concise and general, delegating all operational details to Section 156. Section 87, by contrast, historically listed multiple rebate provisions, leading to frequent amendments as rebate schemes evolved.
      • Potential for Flexibility: Clause 155's approach may facilitate easier policy changes, as new rebates can be introduced or removed by amending Section 156 alone, without altering the main provision.
      • Historical Context: Section 87 has undergone numerous amendments, reflecting changing policy priorities (e.g., inclusion or removal of sections 88, 88A-D, etc.), whereas Clause 155 represents a fresh legislative approach, likely informed by the experience of frequent amendments under the old regime.

      Comparative Policy and Administrative Implications

      • Administrative Efficiency: The streamlined drafting in Clause 155 may reduce the frequency of legislative amendments required, as only Section 156 would need to be updated for changes in rebate policy.
      • Clarity for Taxpayers: The general reference in Clause 155 may improve clarity, as taxpayers need only consult Section 156 for current rebates, rather than tracking multiple cross-references.
      • Potential for Judicial Interpretation: The shift in terminology and drafting may require judicial clarification, especially regarding transitional issues or the interpretation of "tax year" versus "assessment year".

      Conclusion

      Clause 155 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, represents a modernized, streamlined approach to the allowance of rebates in income tax computation. While it retains the core policy objectives and structural features of Section 87 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, it introduces greater flexibility, clarity, and administrative efficiency by delegating substantive details to a subordinate provision (Section 156). The shift in terminology and drafting style reflects an effort to harmonize and future-proof the legislative framework, though it may require careful transitional management and judicial clarification in certain areas.

      For taxpayers and administrators alike, the provision promises continuity in the availability of rebates, while offering a more adaptable and transparent mechanism for future policy changes. Policymakers should ensure that the operational details in Section 156 are drafted with clarity and precision to realize the full benefits of the new approach.


      Full Text:

      Clause 155 Rebate to be allowed in computing income-tax.

       

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax