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
    Retrospective Cancellation of GST Registration: Analysis of Delhi High Court’s Ruling in 2024 (1) ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Deciphering Tax Implications on Capital Reduction: Navigating the Complexities of Section 115QA in I...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Navigating Regulatory Compliance: Analysis of a CHA License Revocation and Restoration Case
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting Section 153A: ITAT Delhi's Stand on Incriminating Material in Assessments: Assessments ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reaffirming the Bounds of Section 153A: Analysis of Delhi High Court's Approach: Assessment post sea...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating Rectification and Revised Returns: Legal Insights from ITAT Bangalore's Ruling
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Mutual Fund Gains and Deemed Dividends: Analyzing the Delhi High Court's Landmark Judgment
    Case LawsCustoms
    Judicial Scrutiny of Customs Seizure and Redemption under the Indian Legal Framework: Foreign Curren...
    Case LawsCustoms
    The Duty of Diligence: Understanding the Legal Implications for Customs Brokers
    Case LawsCustoms
    Legal Analysis of a Customs Appeal Case Involving Mandatory Pre-Deposit Requirements
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Legal Elucidation of Homeopathic Product Classification under Central Excise Tariff Act: Medicament ...
    The Supreme Court's In-Depth Ruling on Corporate Insolvency: Legal Implications Explored
    Money Laundering and Bail: Supreme Court's Interpretation of Section 45 PMLA
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessing Income under Section 147 Post-Quashment of Sections 153A/153C: The Waiver of Limitation ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 153A of the Income Tax Act: A Critical Analysis of the Supreme Court's Interpretation in the...
    The Intersection of Politics, Corruption, and Judicial Review: A Case Study: Validity of order of Hi...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Clarity and Precision in Tax Penalty Proceedings: Insights from a High Court Judgment
    NCLAT's Authority to Recall Judgments: The Intersection of Tribunal Authority and Justice
    Detention and Release of Goods under CGST Act: Discrepancies in the CGST registration of the consign...
    The Detention of Goods under GST Law: Doubts regarding the genuineness of the consignee
❯❯
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
    Retrospective GST cancellation: court limits retroactive effect, stressing objective grounds and hearing rights for taxpayers.
    The court held that retrospective cancellation of GST registration cannot be applied mechanically and must be supported by objective grounds; mere non-filing does not automatically justify cancelling registration for earlier compliant periods. Procedural fairness requires an opportunity of being heard before imposing retrospective cancellation, and the temporal effect of cancellation should align with the taxpayer's cancellation application rather than an earlier retrospective date, given potential impacts such as denial of input tax credit.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Capital reduction transactions treated outside buyback levy when executed pre amendment; buyback tax not attracted.
    The Tribunal held that the capital reduction did not qualify as a buyback for purposes of the buyback tax provision because the transaction was completed before the amendment that broadened the provision's definition; relying on precedents distinguishing capital reduction from buybacks, the Tribunal rejected the revenue's tax avoidance contention and emphasised that the transaction date governs applicability of the amended definition.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Non transferability of CHA license: unauthorized sub letting triggered revocation, later reconsidered due to appellant hardship.
    A licensed CHA was found to have contravened CHALR by effectively transferring operational control to a Mumbai office through a Power of Attorney, breaching non transferability, CHA obligations to obtain authorisations and exercise due diligence, and supervision duties over employees; the firm was held accountable where the licence was used for financial gain.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Incriminating material requirement: Section 153A assessments require material specific to the assessee, not unrelated third party statements.
    Assessments following search operations must be grounded on incriminating material specifically linked to the assessee; material or statements derived from separate or third party search proceedings cannot, alone, serve as incriminating material against an unrelated assessee. Absent assesseespecific incriminating material, additions and disallowances in such assessments lack justification and cannot properly form the basis of adverse tax adjustments.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Admissibility of search statements: corroborative evidence required before additions in post-search tax assessments.
    Statements recorded under Section 132(4) have evidentiary value but cannot alone justify additions under Section 153A; corroborative material discovered during the search is required, and taxpayers must be afforded the opportunity to cross-examine and rebut adverse statements before assessments under Section 153A are finalized.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Rectification under Section 154: procedural lapses should not bar correction of apparent errors in tax returns.
    Interpretation of Section 154 treats misplacement of figures in an original return as a mistake apparent from the record, qualifying for statutory rectification; a revised return filed as a genuine corrective attempt may be recognised despite procedural lapses, and tax authorities should balance procedural compliance with the need to remedy apparent errors and assist taxpayers in claiming corrections.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Classification of Mutual Fund Gains: affirmed as capital gains, clarifies tests distinguishing business income and scope of deemed dividends.
    Classification of gains from mutual fund redemptions turns on intent, transaction frequency, holding period, accounting treatment and the factual matrix to determine capital gains versus business income. Distinguishing genuine capital contributions from transactions that function as distributions is essential before treating receipts as deemed dividends; absent characteristics of a loan or advance against profits, capital infusions should not be recharacterised as dividends.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Redemption under Customs Act: deemed payment recognized as exercising the redemption option despite pandemic-related delay.
    The judgment analyzes the redemption option under the Customs Act allowing fine payment in lieu of confiscation, focusing on the prescribed timeframe and on how actions by a petitioner while seized currency remains with the department can constitute exercise of that option. Considering pandemic-related disruption, the court applied purposive interpretation and concluded the department's refusal to accept a deemed payment was unjustified and that the petitioner's steps effectively availed the statutory redemption alternative.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Duty to exercise due diligence: strict licensing compliance can justify administrative revocation and security forfeiture for brokers.
    The headnote focuses on the duty of diligence under the CBLR 2018, identifying failures to advise clients, to verify information, and to supervise employees as breaches that can attract administrative penalties against a customs broker's licence. It also confirms that regulatory action may be initiated at the broker's registered location regardless of where the underlying transactions occurred, and highlights the need for compliance programs, client advisory practices, and employee training.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Mandatory pre-deposit requirement: payments made during investigation can be counted toward the appeal pre-deposit, protecting access to appeal.
    Interpretation of the pre-deposit requirement focuses on counting payments made during investigation toward the mandatory deposit for appellate admissibility; authorities must account for investigation-stage deposits when assessing compliance to avoid denying appeal rights on technical grounds and to give effect to substantive payment.
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Show AI Summary
    Medicament classification confirmed for a homeopathic hair oil based on ingredients and ordinary perception under tariff law.
    Classification of a homeopathic hair oil as a medicament depends on the ingredients test and the common parlance test. The Tribunal treated AHAHO as a medicament because it contained recognised homeopathic constituents and was labelled under the homeopathic schedule; the Supreme Court affirmed that those medicinal ingredients and the product's perception as a homeopathic medicine outweigh cosmetic imagery and over the counter availability, and that tariff amendments did not change the classificatory result.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Resolution applicant eligibility under insolvency law can be disqualified by trust and company conflicts affecting CIRP participation.
    The judgment finds that valuation disclosures and newspaper publication of Form G met CIRP regulatory requirements despite website upload issues; materially revised resolution plans must be placed before the Committee of Creditors or are procedurally irregular; commercial wisdom of the CoC governs differential treatment of creditors subject to legal compliance; promoter settlement offers and Section 12-A applications require demonstrable CoC consideration; and resolution applicant eligibility is governed by Trusts Act and Companies Act conflicts, not by assumed disqualifications absent specific disqualification orders.
    Case LawsPMLA
    Show AI Summary
    Section 45 PMLA bail standard: stringent satisfaction required on non guilt and low risk of reoffence before granting bail.
    Interpretation of Section 45 PMLA requires a stringent bail standard: courts must be satisfied on reasonable grounds that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit an offence while on bail. An Enforcement Directorate investigation under the PMLA is distinct from predicate offence inquiries, so completion of predicate investigations does not substitute for the specific assessment required under the PMLA; courts must therefore evaluate the seriousness of allegations and the stage and character of the ED probe when considering bail.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reopening assessments under Section 147 requires proper review when Section 150(2) waiver is contested, not clarification.
    Reopening of assessments under Section 147 concerns whether the Assessing Officer has a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment and is subject to procedural safeguards including issuance of a statutory notice. Where prior assessments made in consequence of a search under provisions for search-based assessment were quashed, the question arises whether fresh proceedings may be initiated for income not arising from incriminating material found in the search and whether the limitation period can be waived under Section 150(2) to permit issuance of a notice for reassessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Scope of assessment post-search: completed assessments permit additions only from incriminating material found during searches.
    The Supreme Court clarified that for assessments completed before a search, the Assessing Officer's power to reassess within the retrospective period is constrained: any additions in such completed assessments must be based on incriminating material discovered during the search, thereby limiting use of search powers to matters tied to the unearthed evidence and preventing expansion of assessments on unrelated material.
    Case LawsPMLA
    Show AI Summary
    Judicial oversight of criminal investigations must be cautious to avoid unwarranted de novo probes that disrupt investigative progress.
    The commentary critiques a High Court-ordered de novo investigation into recruitment corruption, treating such measures as extraordinary remedies that should not unsettle substantial prior investigative work. It stresses judicial discipline and adherence to precedent, warns against collusion and political interference in inquiries, recognises expanded locus standi for third parties in complex cases, affirms confidentiality of confession material with limited exceptions, and outlines the Enforcement Directorate's powers in probing and recovering proceeds of money laundering.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Specificity in penalty notices: requirement to identify exact charge prevents defective proceedings and safeguards procedural fairness.
    Applicability of penalty for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars requires the assessing officer to specify the exact limb under which proceedings are initiated; absence of that specificity renders the penalty notice defective, undermines procedural fairness, and justifies setting aside the penalty, thereby obliging tax authorities to adhere to precise notice requirements when invoking penal provisions.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Inherent jurisdiction to recall judgments affirms tribunals can correct proceedings tainted by procedural vitiation or jurisdictional defect.
    The tribunal recognised its inherent jurisdiction to recall judgments distinct from review, holding that recall is available where procedural vitiation, fraud, lack of jurisdiction or failure of natural justice renders a proceeding a nullity. Drawing on the tribunal rules analogue to residual civil-procedure power and higher-court authority, the tribunal treated recall as an incidental order to prevent abuse of process and to correct proceedings affected by jurisdictional defect or gross procedural lapse.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Detention and release under Section 129: proper tax invoice and e way bill establish owner status and permit release.
    Where goods intercepted in transit show a proper tax invoice and a valid e way bill identifying the consignor/consignee, those documents establish ownership for purposes of Section 129 and direct application of the release provision applicable when the owner comes forward; documentary compliance thus determines which release regime applies where GST registration discrepancies are alleged.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Detention of goods under GST: enforcement must assess consignee genuineness and documentary compliance before imposing penalties.
    Detention of goods in transit was contested where authorities suspected the consignee's genuineness despite production of a tax invoice and an E way bill; the Court directed that enforcement action distinguish between penalty provisions and alternative statutory mechanisms, require strict procedural fairness, assess documentary evidence and consignee identity, and remit the matter for fresh administrative consideration accordingly.

    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