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
    Jurisdictional Prerequisites for Initiating Reassessment u/s 148: Non-Depoist of TDS by the Employer
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revisiting the Scope of "Record" u/s 263: Embracing Subsequent Records
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Record": Revisiting the Scope of Revision Powers u/s 264 and Rectification of Mistake ...
    The Doctrine of Natural Justice in GST Proceedings: A Case Study on Show Cause Notice u/s 74"
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) and the Concept of "Plant" under GST: Supreme Court
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: High Court's Stance on Quashing Show Cause Notices
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: Upholding the Principles of Natural Justice
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Re-Assessment Notices Issued During COVID-19 Lockdown
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Unraveling the Mineral Rights Regime: The Supreme Court's Landmark Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Assessment Regime: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Evidentiary Value of Statements Recorded During Income Tax Surveys: A Judicial Analysis
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment: Ensuring Compliance with Statutory Provisions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment Mechanism: Jurisdictional Limits in Income Tax Proceedings
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessment Notices for AY 2013-14: Upholding the Doctrine of Limitation
    Principles of Tax Fairness and Mens Rea: Quashes Penalty for Mere Technical Errors
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Decoding the Mandatory Timelines: A Thorough Examination of the Income Tax Assessment Order Nullific...
    Expiry of E-Way Bill AND Mens Rea: Technical Violation Alone Insufficient for Penalty Imposition
    Maintainability of Appeals: High Court Upholds Strict Interpretation of Limitation Provisions in GST...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Stay of Tax Demand: Interpreting the Discretionary Power u/s 220(6) of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Technical Services" under Tax Treaties: A Comprehensive Analysis
❯❯
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
    Jurisdictional prerequisite: notice in the name of a deceased person invalidates reassessment initiation under Section 148.
    A notice under Section 148 issued in the name of a deceased person is a jurisdictional defect because a valid notice to the correct person is a condition precedent to reopening an assessment; legal representatives have no statutory duty to intimate death; where salary tax has been deducted at source, reassessment cannot be pursued against the deceased or their representatives, and employer non-deposit of TDS does not create an outstanding demand against the assessee or their legal representatives.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisional power: Commissioner may consider subsequent records available at time of examination in tax proceedings.
    The Court construed the Commissioner's revisional power to permit consideration of all materials relating to the proceeding that are available at the time of his examination, including documents and valuation reports that came on the file after the assessment order; the Explanation to the provision was read as clarificatory, giving an inclusive meaning to "record" rather than restricting it to what the Assessing Officer had when passing the assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revision powers under section 264: Commissioner must consider expanded record and rehear revision petitions on merits.
    The Court held that the Commissioner must consider a revision petition on its merits and that the term record in revision proceedings extends beyond the return and assessment order to include material from other sources and prior assessments. It emphasised consistency in treatment of continuing transactions and required the Principal Commissioner to take into account all relevant materials, identify any apparent mistakes, afford a personal hearing, and pass a reasoned order within a short timeframe.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice in tax proceedings: show cause notices must allege fraud or concealment before enhanced recovery is invoked.
    The court quashed the enhanced-provision show cause notice for failing to allege the essential elements of fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts and held that the enhanced regime may be invoked only when the adjudicating authority is prima facie satisfied of those elements and records that satisfaction in the notice; absent such express allegations the proceedings are without jurisdiction though fresh proceedings may be initiated with a proper notice.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Plant classification under GST: functionality test determines ITC eligibility for buildings serving special technical requirements.
    The expression plant or machinery in Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act must be interpreted by reference to functionality rather than by equating it with the statutory definition of "plant and machinery." A building qualifies as a plant for ITC purposes if, on the facts, it was planned and constructed to serve the assessee's special technical or operational requirements. The functionality test is fact-specific and requires case-by-case analysis of the building's role in the assessee's business.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication bars further proceedings on stale show cause notices absent a reasonable explanation.
    The court found the delay from 2008 to 2021 inordinate and unexplained, concluding the respondents did not provide a reasonable explanation; the delayed transfer to the call book without intimation breached statutory intimation requirements, and established precedent limits reliance on higher authority to excuse gross unexplained delays in adjudication of show cause notices.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication undermines procedural fairness and bars continuation of prolonged, unexplained proceedings.
    The court found that prolonged, unexplained delay in adjudicating a show cause notice breached procedural fairness and natural justice, causing irretrievable prejudice by impairing evidence preservation and business planning. Delay attributable to the revenue authorities, contrary to Tribunal directions for timely disposal, rendered continuance of proceedings unsustainable and emphasized the necessity of justifying delay and ensuring timely adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Pandemic relief legislation upheld: re-assessment notices issued during lockdown remain valid despite later procedural rule.
    The court interpreted the pandemic relief legislation as providing comprehensive relief that extended to procedural obligations in force at the time of issuance, not confined solely to extensions of time. It applied the principle that statutes operate prospectively and concluded the later-introduced procedural provision does not apply retrospectively to invalidate earlier-issued re-assessment notices, limiting its analysis to the validity of issuance and not the merits of re-assessment proceedings.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Central legislative competence over mineral regulation affirmed; royalties characterised as compensation for resource depletion, limiting state levies.
    The Court concluded that the central legislative framework occupies the field of mineral regulation and that royalties are compensation for depletion of state-owned natural resources, not conventional taxes; consequently the Centre may impose such levies while States remain constrained from imposing royalties in the nature of compensation that would encroach on the Centre's exclusive regulatory domain.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment mechanism requires reassessment steps to follow a centralized faceless procedure, otherwise territorial officer lacks jurisdiction.
    The Scheme framed under the enabling provision must be read to include preliminary proceedings linked to reassessment, so that reassessment initiation and related steps follow the faceless mechanism; concurrent exercise of territorial and faceless functions would undermine the Scheme's purpose and render steps taken outside the faceless protocol inconsistent with the statutory framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Evidentiary value of survey statements: survey disclosures lack conclusive weight and require independent corroboration.
    Statements recorded during a tax survey are permissive and not taken on oath, so they are not conclusive evidence by themselves; they cannot be treated as inherently incriminating material to justify reopening assessments or making additions without independent corroboration, and must be recorded free of coercion in line with administrative instructions and judicial precedents.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment jurisdiction: JAO lacked authority under the statutory faceless procedure, invalidating improperly issued notices.
    The court determined that reassessment notices and related proceedings were inconsistent with the statutory faceless assessment framework because they were issued without following the prescribed allocation of jurisdiction and procedural sequence under the faceless mechanism; administrative orders purportedly exempting cases were not read to displace the statutory requirements and earlier precedent interpreting the faceless provisions was applied.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless Assessment: statutory scheme governs jurisdiction and extends to central and international taxation proceedings.
    The court analysed Section 151A read with Sections 144B and 148A and held that administrative instructions dated March 31, 2021 and September 6, 2021 issued under section 119 apply only to assessment orders and do not extend to proceedings under Sections 148A and 148; those instructions cannot be read into the scheme notified on March 29, 2022. The mandatory faceless procedure under Sections 144B and 151A applies to notices and proceedings, including central charges and international taxation charges, and notices issued outside that mechanism fall outside the statutory jurisdictional framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Doctrine of limitation prevents revival of lapsed reassessment powers; administrative instructions cannot "travel back in time."
    The court held that when the right to reopen assessment had already lapsed under the pre amended limitation regime, subsequent amendments or administrative instructions could not revive that right; administrative attempts to "travel back in time" and extend limitation were invalid, assessees retain the defence of limitation, and pandemic era notifications did not cover years whose limitation had already expired.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement in tax penalties: technical errors without intent cannot justify penalty imposition under GST compliance.
    Requirement of mens rea for imposition of tax penalties is central where e Way Bill compliance is questioned. Mere procedural or timing inconsistencies, without evidence of intent to evade tax and where valid tax invoices accompany the goods and tax has been charged, do not justify penal action. Authorities must establish culpable intent with cogent reasoning and comply with procedural and natural justice safeguards before imposing penalties.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Mandatory timelines under Section 144C require assessments to be completed within the prescribed month after DRP direction, else invalid.
    Once the DRP framed directions, the Assessing Officer was obliged to complete the assessment in conformity with those directions within one month from the end of the month in which the DRP's direction was served; service by uploading the DRP directive on the ITBA portal constitutes valid service for computing that period. The procedure does not envisage further involvement of the Transfer Pricing Officer once the DRP's direction is issued and an order under the transfer pricing provision has been remitted to the AO.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement: technical expiry of an e way bill alone cannot justify a tax penalty without intent to evade.
    The court held that a purely technical lapse in E Way Bill formalities - where goods were otherwise covered by two e invoices and two E Way Bills and there was no dispute on consignor, consignee or goods - does not demonstrate the mens rea necessary to impose a penalty under the tax penal provision; authorities' focus on the expired E Way Bill alone was legally insufficient given documentary explanations and absence of intent to evade tax.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Exclusion of Limitation Act: GST Act's specific appellate time limits operate as a self contained code, barring general extensions.
    The court analysed whether the GST Act's appellate limitation regime operates as a complete code excluding the general Limitation Act. It applied the principle that fiscal statutes with detailed procedural and temporal rules are to be strictly construed, treating the special statute's limitation provision as implying exclusion of the Limitation Act's extension mechanism, and emphasised policy aims of expeditious dispute resolution, revenue certainty and administrative finality.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Assessing Officer discretion in granting stay of tax demand cannot be rigidly constrained by administrative OMs, requiring case specific consideration.
    The Assessing Officer's discretionary power under section 220(6) to grant stay of tax demand is not fettered by CBDT Office Memorandums; those OMs are administrative guidelines and do not mandate a uniform pre deposit. The AO must consider prima facie case, likelihood of success, and undue hardship and may require a higher, lower or no deposit depending on case specific facts. Administrative adjustment of refunds without considering a pending stay application was held arbitrary and the matter was remitted for reconsideration applying these principles.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Technical services interpretation requires specialized expertise and a demonstrable link to payments for withholding tax consequences.
    Interpretation of technical services under the India Ireland DTAA requires the application or transfer of specialized knowledge, skill or expertise; incidental training or assistance enabling a reseller to market standard software does not meet that threshold. The Reseller Agreement did not contemplate technology transfer or bespoke solutions, payments were tied to reseller net revenue, and the record lacked material linking remittances to customized technical services. Authorities must establish an evidentiary and contractual nexus between payments and provision of specialized technical services before applying withholding tax under the treaty.

    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