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
    Maximum Marginal Rate and Surcharge for Discretionary Trusts: ITAT Special Bench Clarifies Slab-Base...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Classification of Quicklime under the Customs Tariff: CESTAT Bangalore's Reaffirmation of HSN-Based ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Reassessment Notices Post-Ashish Agarwal and TOLA: Limitation and Sanction u/ss 149 and ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Seizure, Provisional Release and Limitation: Supreme Court on the Interplay of Sections 110(2), 110A...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Prima Facie Adjustments v. Substantive Adjudication: Procedural Boundaries in Return Processing (CPC...
    Survey, Unaccounted Stock (Eye-Estimates) and the Limits of Section 130: Statutory Primacy of Sectio...
    Input Tax Credit Abuse (ITC Fraud) and Judicial Review: Delhi High Court on Natural Justice, RUDs an...
    Writ Jurisdiction and Statutory Appeal in GST Fraud Investigations: A Judicial Re-affirmation
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) Post-Amendment, Accumulated Income and the Sixth Year: Legal Interpretation, Procedura...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Form No.10B & Section 119(2)(b): Condonation of Delay in Tax Exemption Claims: Principles, Precedent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Regulatory Ambit of Import of Second-Hand Electronic Capital Goods: Classification, Exemption and Pr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 195, DTAAs and Software Licences: A Practical Framework for Withholding Tax
    Provisional Attachment under GST: Draconian Powers, Statutory Time-Bars and the Rule of Law: Interpr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 263 Revisited: Jurisdictional Boundaries Where AO Takes a Plausible View on 80G Claims
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional Release in Customs Law: Balancing Revenue Protection and Commercial Fairness - A Compara...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Conditional Re-export and Revenue Safeguards: Judicially Crafted Remedies in Customs Adjudication
    GST Limitation Regime vs Executive Notifications: Judicial Review of Time-Limit Notifications under ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) After Finance Act, 2022: Utilization of Accumulated Income - Deemed Income, Vesting an...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    When Can an ITAT Reopen a Decision? Distinguishing Prior Binding Precedent from Subsequent Case-Law
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment and Jurisdiction: Reconciling JAO Roles with NFAC u/ss 144B & 151A (JAO / FAO)
❯❯
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
    Discretionary trusts taxed at maximum marginal rate must have surcharge computed under slab and threshold rules, not automatically at top rate.
    For private discretionary trusts taxed at the maximum marginal rate under sections 164/167B, the term denotes the highest basic slab rate under the Finance Act, but surcharge on that tax must be computed according to the Finance Act's slab- and threshold-based surcharge provisions; if the trust's total income does not cross the statutory surcharge threshold, no surcharge is leviable despite basic tax being at the top slab rate.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Quicklime classification: impure lime falls under specific tariff heading, not high purity calcium oxide, per HSN purity standard.
    The imported material, chemically tested as impure calcium oxide (about 92.2% CaO with mineral impurities), is classifiable under Heading 2522 10 00 as Quicklime. Chapter Note 1 to Chapter 25 must be read contextually and does not disqualify quicklime from Chapter 25 where the tariff text and HSN Explanatory Notes expressly contemplate calcined quicklime. Heading 2825 is confined to chemically pure calcium oxide (approximately 98% CaO) and its residuary sub-heading cannot displace the specific Heading 2522 unless that purity threshold and absence of impurities are met.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reassessment notices: surviving-time computation under COVID-era relief and new limitation rules renders late notices time-barred.
    The court held that in transitional reassessment cases the appropriate sanctioning authority is determined by when the original three-year expiry fell within the COVID-era relief window, so approval by the ordinarily specified authority for within-three-year cases suffices; limitation is governed by a two-step surviving-time computation measured from the original notice as of the relief-window terminal date, excluding stayed periods and the time allowed to reply, and any later notice issued beyond that surviving time is time-barred under the substituted limitation regime read with the time-relief statute and the legal-fiction continuity.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Seizure of goods: six month statutory limit for issuing show cause notice is mandatory despite provisional release.
    The six month limit in Section 110(2) for issuing a show cause notice after seizure under Section 110(1) is mandatory; only a single six month extension under the first proviso is permissible. Provisional release under Section 110A does not suspend, extend or neutralise that time bar. The 2018 second proviso making the six month rule inapplicable where provisional release is ordered is a substantive change and does not validate pre amendment seizures prolonged without notice.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Prima facie adjustments cannot decide debatable legal claims in return processing; contested deductions require scrutiny procedures.
    When a claimed deduction depends on timely deposit of employee welfare contributions and the legal question is debatable or pending higher adjudication, summary processing adjustments cannot be used to resolve the dispute; such matters require scrutiny or reassessment procedures and the validity of any processing-stage action must be judged by the law and facts existing at the time of processing.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Survey discovered unaccounted stock must be assessed under sections 35(6) and 73/74, not via section 130.
    Tax liability for unaccounted goods found in a survey must be determined under section 35(6) read with sections 73/74 of the GST Act; section 130 cannot be used to quantify tax or levy penalty in such cases. The statutory cross reference to sections 73/74 requires adherence to their procedural safeguards, and quantification based solely on eye estimates during survey is insufficient without proper weighment or verification.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit fraud: writ relief limited where appeals exist; hearings and raw RUDs generally suffice absent prejudice.
    The High Court held that writ jurisdiction must be exercised with restraint in complex ITC fraud matters appealable under Section 107; at least one personal hearing and provision of RUDs as collected by the Department generally suffice absent demonstrable prejudice; detailed allocation of penal liability under Sections 73/74/75(13)/122 requires adjudicatory or appellate factfinding and cannot be resolved in writ proceedings.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Writ jurisdiction limited where statutory appeal exists for fact intensive GST fraud investigations; appellate forum preferred for evidentiary disputes.
    The High Court reaffirmed that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is generally inappropriate where a statutory appeal exists for fact intensive GST investigations alleging fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit through fake invoices. Courts should confine review to jurisdictional defects or breaches of natural justice; detailed evidentiary disputes involving voluminous Relied Upon Documents, recorded statements and transaction chains are better resolved by the specialised appellate forum, which should hear appeals on merits and avoid dismissing on limitation grounds where appropriate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Prospectivity of tax amendments: changes to accumulation rules apply from their effective date, not to prior accruals.
    Interpretation of section 11(3) concludes that, under the pre-amendment text, accumulated charitable funds could be applied in the year immediately following the five-year accumulation period; the 2022/2023 amendment removing that year was treated as prospective under the presumption against retrospective tax imposition. Separately, corrections by the Centralised Processing Centre under section 143(1) are confined to mechanistic errors and should not resolve debatable substantive questions of statutory interpretation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay in tax exemption claims should favor substantive rights over mere technical filing defects when bona fide.
    Equitable application of the Condonation Power requires authorities to admit late Form No.10B filings when short delays or credible explanations would otherwise strip claimants of substantive exemption rights; procedural defects such as digital-signature technicalities must be tested against documentary e-filing evidence and substantial compliance, while administrative safeguards permit subsequent verification of the audit report.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Imported second hand MFDs meeting HSE technical criteria can be exempt from BIS registration and obtain conditional provisional release.
    Where importers produce prima facie evidence that imported second hand MFDs meet the Highly Specialized Equipment (HSE) criteria (limited units per model and physical thresholds such as weight >80 kg), those devices are exempt from compulsory BIS registration under the CRO and fall within the FTP residuary category for second hand capital goods; accordingly, provisional release may be granted on conditions (bond/guarantee and document verification) without prejudice to final adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Royalty characterisation for software determines withholding-non exclusive copies/licenses generally not subject to TDS unless income is chargeable.
    Payments for off the shelf/shrink wrapped software or hardware embedded software that constitute a resale of a copyrighted article or a grant of a non exclusive, restricted licence for internal use do not ordinarily constitute royalty under section 9(1)(vi) or typical DTAA provisions; withholding under section 195 arises only where the non resident's receipts are chargeable to tax in India (e.g., due to a PE or transfer of substantive copyright rights), and retrospective domestic amendments cannot be used to impose past withholding obligations on payors who lacked notice of the expanded definition.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional attachment limits: fixed statutory expiry prevents re-issuance of lapsed attachment orders on same property.
    A provisional attachment under the CGST scheme automatically ceases on expiry of the statutory time limit; once it has lapsed by operation of law, tax authorities have no power to re issue or renew a fresh provisional attachment over the same property on substantially the same grounds, and any such fresh order is void. Procedural rules or executive instructions cannot be used to circumvent this statutory safeguard and must be aligned with the primary legislation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisional jurisdiction cannot overturn a plausible assessment on charitable deductions where donation conditions are met.
    Tribunals held that Explanation 2 limiting CSR expenditure as a business deduction operates within the business income chapter and does not ipso facto bar claims under the donations regime; specific statutory exceptions indicate Parliament's choice to restrict only certain items. A mandatory CSR outlay does not automatically negate donation character where there is no material return, provided donee approval and documentary evidence are established. On revisional power, section 263 cannot be invoked to overturn an assessing officer's tenable, precedent backed view where enquiries were made; revision is justified only if the AO's conclusion is legally untenable or there was no inquiry.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional release of seized imports permitted subject to proportionate security, favouring bonds over bank guarantees before adjudication.
    Provisional release under Section 110 is permitted subject to proportionate protections: payment of duties as self-assessed; payment of a substantive portion (commonly fifty percent) of any departmental differential; and execution of enforceable bonds for the balance. Bank guarantees or cash security for speculative fines prior to adjudication are often disproportionate and may be replaced by bonds, though deliberate mis-declaration, concealment or prohibited imports justify stricter protective measures.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Conditional re-export of detained imports permitted when revenue is secured by enforceable financial guarantees and timelines.
    Courts may permit re-export of detained imports where the anticipated departmental remedy is monetary, provided the importer furnishes enforceable financial safeguards-typically a bond quantifying revenue exposure and a bank guarantee for a calibrated portion of the redetermined value-and complies with prescribed timelines; such orders are without prejudice to the Department's right to complete investigations, adjudicate, assess differential duties, and impose penalties.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Force majeure causation in GST limitation: proximate cause and mandatory council recommendation govern valid time limit extensions.
    Section 168A empowers executive modification of GST limitation periods but operates as delegated legislation subject to strict construction: valid exercise requires (i) a qualifying force majeure event, (ii) inability to complete prescribed actions, and (iii) proximate causation by that event; GST Council recommendation is a mandatory precondition and GIC substitution or post-facto ratification does not cure statutory defect.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Accumulated trust income: Tribunal rulings treat the 2022 amendment as prospective, preserving the prior six year utilisation window.
    Two Tribunal benches held that the Finance Act, 2022 amendment to the accumulation provision is prospective; accumulations made before 1 April 2022 remain governed by the prior law including the additional one year grace, and utilisation within that six year window cannot be taxed for AY 2023 24. The Tribunals relied on the presumption against retrospectivity, the Finance Bill memorandum stating an effective date of 1 April 2023, and fairness doctrines to conclude Parliament did not intend to curtail vested rights retroactively.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tribunal recall power limited: later judicial overruling alone cannot reopen finalized tax orders under review rules.
    The tribunal's power to amend is limited to rectifying a mistake apparent from the record existing at the time of the original order or to taking into account contemporaneous binding precedent not placed before it; a subsequent overruling or clarification by a superior court cannot alone justify recall, in light of the explanatory bar in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC and related authorities.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Concurrent jurisdiction between JAO and faceless authorities affirmed; JAO may initiate reassessment followed by faceless assessment.
    The faceless scheme and RMS produce information that may be surfaced to the JAO, permitting the JAO to conduct the pre-notice inquiry and form satisfaction to issue a notice initiating reassessment; thereafter records may be transmitted for faceless assessment via automated allocation, embodying a two-stage model that preserves both JAO initiation authority and central faceless assessment.

    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