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 LawsCustoms
    Decoding the Interplay of Customs Duty, Interest, and Confiscation Proceedings
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Assessment u/s 153C: Reckoning the Limitation Period
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting 'Initiation' of Penalty Action u/s 275(1)(c): Period of Limitation
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment: Decoding the Exemptions for International Tax Charges
    Interpreting Rule 86A: Safeguarding Taxpayers' Rights in ITC Blocking
    Writ Jurisdiction Not a Shortcut to Bypass Tax Adjudication Process, Rules Court: Judicial Disciplin...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Decoding the Interplay of Sections 153A and 153C in Search Assessments: Limitation and Reassessment ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Customs Valuation and Classification: Upholding Due Process and Objective Assessment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Income Tax Case Transfers: Place of Business vs. Registered Office: Determining the Appropriate Juri...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Writ Petitions and Section 153C Proceedings: Examining the High Court Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting Time Limits for 80G Registration for Charitable Institutions: Avoiding Absurdity in the...
    Unraveling the Web: Forgery, Fake GST Firms, and the Pursuit of Economic Justice
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interplay between the provisions of Section 153C and Section 147: Limits on Automatic Reassessment i...
    Decoding the GST Forgery Case: Balancing Personal Liberty and Safeguarding Public Interest for Grant...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Equity and Justice in Tax Matters: Condonation of Bona Fide Delays
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Embracing Equity in Tax Laws: Recognizing Genuine Difficulties in Condonation of Delays in filing of...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Recovery Proceedings Against Legal Heirs of Sole Proprietors: Invalidity of Demand Notices Issued Ag...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Jurisdiction of DRI Officers: Supreme Court Upholds Section 97 of Finance Act 2022 validating Custom...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Dissecting the Legality of IGST on Ocean Freight for FOB Imports: Refund of IGST
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Real Income Taxation: Avoiding Double Disallowance of Wages and Salaries Payable
❯❯
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 LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Customs duty liability on redemption: assessment under Section 28 triggers interest under Section 28AB for delayed payment.
    The court concluded that duty liability arises when an owner redeems confiscated goods under Section 125(2), while the procedural assessment and determination of that duty can be carried out under Section 28, and that the interest provision of Section 28AB applies where Section 28 is invoked for such duties; the Jagdish Cancer ratio does not preclude applying Section 28 in confiscation-redemption assessments.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation under Section 153C: six-year period runs from receipt of seized documents, requiring assessment under Section 153C.
    Where seized assets, documents and digital data recovered from a third party are found to relate to another person, the date on which the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction receives those seized materials is the deemed date of search for reckoning the six-year limitation period; that deemed date determines the relevant assessment year and which prior six assessment years fall under the special procedure for initiating assessments under Section 153C.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Initiation of penalty proceedings: limitation runs from the Assessing Officer's reference, barring belated penalty orders.
    Initiation of penalty proceedings occurs when the Assessing Officer makes a reference to the competent authority; the subsequent show cause notice is a procedural opportunity and does not restart the limitation period, so the statutory limitation for completing penalty proceedings runs from the date of the Assessing Officer's reference and a penalty order passed after that period is time barred.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment procedure must govern issuance of Section 148 notices in international tax matters, irrespective of residency.
    The court held that the plain language of the faceless scheme, Section 144B(2) and the CBDT order requires that issuance of Section 148 notices in matters involving international tax charges comply with the mandatory faceless assessment procedure, irrespective of the taxpayer's residency status, and that notices issued without adherence to that procedure are inconsistent with the statutory scheme.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    ITC blocking under Rule 86A: restricts orders to credit presently available in the electronic credit ledger, limiting retrospective blockage.
    Rule 86A(1) functions as a temporary protective mechanism that may be invoked only where input tax credit is currently available in the taxpayer's electronic credit ledger and the officer has reasons to believe that such present credit has been fraudulently availed or is ineligible; the expression "amount equivalent to such credit" must be read together with the condition of availability in the ECL and does not authorise retrospective blocking of ITC already utilised or refunded.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Exhaustion of statutory remedies prevents direct writ challenges to tax demands absent exceptional circumstances or factual disputes.
    The court held that exhaustion of statutory remedies bars writ relief where efficacious alternate remedies exist and where resolution requires factual or classification inquiries; finding no exceptional circumstances to bypass the statutory process, the court dismissed the writ petitions but granted liberty to the petitioners to pursue statutory remedies, including filing responses to show cause notices or appeals against adjudication orders within the period allowed, subject to compliance with prescribed conditions such as pre-deposit obligations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reassessment limitation: commencement depends on AO's recorded satisfaction, not the search date, for non-searched entities.
    Reassessment of a non-searched entity under Section 153C must be measured from the date the Assessing Officer records satisfaction about the seized material's relevance to that entity, not from the date of the search when the same AO is involved; the proviso to Section 153A(1) prevents the extended limitation period introduced by the 2017 amendment from applying to searches before the statutory cutoff, and physical handover of materials is a machinery provision rather than the substantive commencement trigger.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Transaction value protection: declared import price accepted; principal-use classification of motor controllers affirmed after procedural defects in reassessment were found
    The tribunal upheld the declared transaction value, finding that the authority enhanced assessable value without following statutory procedures and without proving non-comparability; NIDB assessed-value data alone was insufficient. On classification, the motor controllers were held to be parts principally used with electric motors and correctly classed under CTH 8503, with explanatory notes and the principal-use test displacing revenue's attempt to treat them as vehicle accessories.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Place of business controls assessment jurisdiction; transfer permitted where incriminating materials were seized in that jurisdiction.
    When incriminating materials seized in a particular circle are directly connected to an assessee's business activities and essential to assessment, the assessing authority may transfer proceedings to the circle where those materials were seized. The decision emphasizes that place of business-reflecting where operative evidence and activities occurred-can control assessment jurisdiction, and that transfer facilitates a coordinated investigation while procedural safeguards like show cause notices and opportunities to reply remain relevant.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Writ jurisdiction preserved where exceptions to alternative remedies exist; defective Section 153C compliance undermines post-search assessments.
    The court analysed when High Court writ jurisdiction may be exercised despite alternative remedies, reiterating exceptions for violations of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, or fundamental rights. It examined Section 153C procedural requirements, particularly the necessity of a valid satisfaction note by the Assessing Officer of the searched person, time limits and jurisdictional competence, and the limited evidentiary value of loose sheets and retracted statements absent corroboration.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Time limits for 80G registration: purposive interpretation prevents existing charities being barred and preserves merit-based verification.
    The Tribunal construed the amended registration scheme to hold that the six month filing period tied to commencement of activities applies to newly formed institutions that have not begun activities, not to existing charities that obtained provisional approval; it required the assessing authority to treat applications filed within six months before provisional approval expiry as within time and to verify eligibility on merits, providing opportunity to supply documents.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Admissibility of custodial disclosures: discovery linked statements can be admitted, shaping jurisdiction and bail in GST fraud cases.
    The summary addresses three operative legal points: admissibility of custodial disclosures limited to parts directly leading to discovery of material items; jurisdictional inquiry in multi state economic offences founded on connections between the complainant, place of lodging the FIR and links to accused and firms; and stringent bail evaluation in large scale economic crimes considering gravity, evidence, punishment, risk of tampering, accused's influence and public interest, applied to a scheme of forged GST firms and bogus invoices.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Non obstante clause in third party search provision applies only after the AO assumes jurisdiction by issuing a notice.
    The Assessing Officer of the other person must record satisfaction that incriminating material relates to that person's total income for specific assessment years before issuing a third party notice; the non obstante clause in the third party provision applies only after the Assessing Officer assumes jurisdiction by issuing such a notice and does not oust regular reassessment provisions where jurisdiction under the third party scheme is not assumed.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Bail in economic offences: stricter scrutiny where circumstantial financial links to proceeds of crime risk investigation and public interest.
    The court examined bail appropriateness where applicants allegedly knowingly received and concealed proceeds from a large-scale GST fraud involving fake registrations and bogus invoices. It treated unexplained transactions as strong circumstantial evidence of complicity and applied a heightened bail regime for serious economic offences, weighing gravity of offence, public fund loss, evidence strength and risk of tampering. Gender or familial ties were held insufficient to justify leniency when individuals are shown to have benefited from proceeds of crime.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay: bona fide short technical glitches in filing income tax returns warrant equitable condonation by authorities.
    The High Court held that a one day, bona fide delay in filing an income tax return due to a technical portal glitch could not be rejected merely because the return had been processed with a demand; such reasoning was misconceived. Applying earlier authorities that endorse an empathetic and non rigid approach, the court emphasised that short delays caused by genuine human or technical problems should be condoned in exercise of administrative discretion, reinforcing the primacy of equity and justice in condonation applications for returns.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay: personal illness of a tax professional can justify relief in filing income tax returns.
    The summary establishes that under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, delay in filing returns caused by personal difficulties of a chartered accountant (such as illness of a family member) can be a genuine reason for discretionary condonation; authorities should assess such claims sensitively, require reasoned disbelief if rejecting medical evidence, and interpret discretionary tax powers in light of equity, substantial justice and harmonious construction.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Invalidity of notices to deceased persons prevents recovery from legal heirs absent specific statutory machinery enabling continuation.
    Issuance of a demand or show cause notice to a deceased sole proprietor is a jurisdictional defect because notice to the correct person is a condition precedent under the Customs Drawback Rules; absent a statutory machinery provision or voluntary submission by legal representatives, recovery of erroneously availed drawback and penalties cannot be pursued against legal heirs.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdiction of revenue intelligence officers affirmed: legislative validation sustains past customs show cause notices as constitutionally permissible.
    The Court concluded the defect identified in Canon India is unfounded when Notification No. 44/2011 and amended Section 17 are read together, distinguishing assessment functions under Section 17 from recovery under Section 28, and held that Section 97 of the Finance Act, 2022 validly and purposively validates past show cause notices issued by DRI and similarly situated officers, with retrospective application limited to the object of validation and passing Article 14 tests of reasonable classification and proportionality.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    IGST on ocean freight invalid where IGST already paid on import value, preventing double taxation under valuation rules.
    The court held that where IGST has been paid on the value of imported goods inclusive of cost, freight and insurance under Section 5(1) of the IGST Act read with the Customs Act, the CIF/FOB distinction is immaterial and a notification provision seeking separate IGST on ocean freight for FOB imports cannot be sustained, reinforcing fiscal neutrality and preventing double taxation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Timing difference in wage provisions prevents double disallowance; actual payment deductible after reversal.
    Where provisions for wages and salaries are reversed in the return and actual payments are later made and evidenced, those entries represent a timing difference rather than inherently bogus expenditure; treating the same item as disallowable in the earlier year and again disallowing the later payment would result in double disallowance contrary to the taxation of real income.

    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