Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 TMI Notes - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ----
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Upholding the Transfer of Assessment Proceedings u/s 127: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsService Tax
    Navigating the Taxation Labyrinth: The Supreme Court's Guidance on Transfer of Right to Use Goods
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Supreme Court Upholds Forfeiture of Earnest-Money Deposits under SARFAESI Rules
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    The Generality vs. Enumeration Principle: A Key to Interpreting Delegated Rule-Making Power: Validit...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Share Premium Addition u/s 68: Demystifying Share Premium Transactions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Intricacies of Income Tax Penalty u/s 271(1)(c): Fairness in Tax Administration
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Ensuring Fair Procedure before declaring Fraud in Bank Loan: Providing Relevant Documents and Opport...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Scope and Limitations under Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of Search and Seizure Assessments: Unraveling the Intricacies of Section...
    Decoding the Judgement: Navigating the Complexities of ITC Eligibility under the GST Regime
    Excess stock found during survey: Navigating the Intricacies of UPGST / CGST Act and Invoking Wrong ...
    Striking a Balance: Judicial Interpretation of GST Provisions on Record-Keeping and Penalties
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Interim Orders and the Limits of Article 142: Safeguarding Natural Justice Balancing Judicial Powers...
    Upholding Fairness and Transparency in Insolvency Resolution: A Landmark Judgment on the IBC
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Supreme Court Clarifies Vicarious Liability of Directors in Cheque Dishonour Cases
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Interim Compensation in Cheque Dishonor Cases: Discretion and Due Process, Scope of the word "May"
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Unraveling the Principles of Delay Condonation: A Comprehensive Analysis by the Supreme Court
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting Section 80G Provisions: ITAT's Stance on Charitable Institution Registration
    Case LawsCustoms
    Monetary Limits for Filing Appeals: Analyzing the CESTAT Judgment on Binding Nature of CBIC Instruct...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting the Scope and Limits of Sections 153A and 153C: A Judicial Perspective
❯❯
MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

    +

    Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

    NOTE:

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

    TMI Notes

    Back

    All TMI Notes

    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
      No Records Found

      TMI Notes

      Back

      All TMI Notes

      whatsappJoin Channel
      Showing Results for : Reset Filters

      Introducing a new tax regime with revised tax slabs and by eliminating various exemptions and deductions : Clause 202 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 115BAC of the income tax Act, 1961

      2 May, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Clause 202 New tax regime for individuals, Hindu undivided family and others.

      Income Tax Bill, 2025

      Introduction

      Clause 202 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, represents a pivotal shift in the Indian tax regime for individuals, Hindu Undivided Families (HUFs), and other specified entities such as associations of persons (AOPs), bodies of individuals (BOIs), and artificial juridical persons. It is designed to streamline and simplify the computation of income tax by introducing a new tax regime with revised tax slabs and by eliminating various exemptions and deductions. This clause is a successor and evolution of the existing Section 115BAC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which, along with the procedural Rules 21AG and Rule 21AGA of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, currently governs the new tax regime's operational framework.

      The significance of Clause 202 lies in its comprehensive approach towards rationalizing the tax structure, broadening the tax base, and reducing the administrative burden both for taxpayers and the tax authorities. It reflects the government's ongoing policy direction to move towards a more transparent, equitable, and less exemption-driven tax system.

      Objective and Purpose

      The legislative intent behind Clause 202 is to further the government's agenda of tax simplification and to incentivize compliance by offering lower tax rates in exchange for foregoing a host of exemptions and deductions. The clause seeks to:

      • Consolidate and rationalize the tax slabs for individuals, HUFs, and other specified entities.
      • Eliminate the complexities associated with numerous exemptions and deductions, thereby making the tax system more straightforward and less prone to litigation.
      • Provide clarity and certainty to taxpayers regarding their tax liabilities.
      • Reduce the compliance burden by minimizing the need to track and claim various deductions and exemptions.
      • Align the Indian tax system with international best practices, where lower rates are often paired with a broader tax base.

      Historically, the Indian income tax regime has been characterized by multiple exemptions and deductions, resulting in a complex and often opaque tax structure. The new regime, as embodied in Clause 202, seeks to address these issues by offering taxpayers a choice between the old regime (with exemptions and deductions) and the new regime (lower rates, fewer deductions).

      Detailed Analysis of Clause 202 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025

      1. Scope and Applicability

      Clause 202(1) applies to:

      • Individuals
      • Hindu Undivided Families (HUFs)
      • Associations of Persons (AOPs) (other than co-operative societies)
      • Bodies of Individuals (BOIs), whether incorporated or not
      • Artificial juridical persons referred to in section 2(77)(g)

      This broadens the scope beyond the initial coverage of Section 115BAC, which was originally limited to individuals and HUFs, but was later expanded to include AOPs, BOIs, and artificial juridical persons.

      2. Tax Rates and Slabs

      The new tax slabs under Clause 202(1) are as follows:

      Sl. No.Total IncomeRate of Tax
      1Upto Rs. 4,00,000Nil
      2Rs. 4,00,001 to Rs. 8,00,0005%
      3Rs. 8,00,001 to Rs. 12,00,00010%
      4Rs. 12,00,001 to Rs. 16,00,00015%
      5Rs. 16,00,001 to Rs. 20,00,00020%
      6Rs. 20,00,001 to Rs. 24,00,00025%
      7Above Rs. 24,00,00030%

      These slabs represent a further rationalization over the existing regime, with higher exemption limits and a more gradual progression of tax rates. For instance, the nil rate extends up to Rs. 4,00,000, and the highest 30% rate applies only above Rs. 24,00,000.

      3. Computation of Total Income

      Clause 202(2) mandates that total income for the purposes of the new regime shall be computed:

      • Without any exemption or deduction under various provisions, including specified Schedules and Sections (e.g., Schedule III, sections 144, 19(1), 22(1)(b), 33(8), 48, 49, 45(3), 46, 47(1)(a), and most of Chapter VIII except sections 124(1), 125(3), and 146).
      • Without set off of losses:
        • Carried forward or depreciation from earlier years, if attributable to the disallowed deductions.
        • Any loss under the head "Income from house property" with any other head of income.
      • Without any exemption or deduction for allowances or perquisites provided under any other law in force.

      This comprehensive exclusion of exemptions, deductions, and set-offs is central to the policy of broadening the tax base and simplifying compliance.

      4. Treatment of Losses and Depreciation

      Clause 202(3) stipulates that losses and depreciation referred to in sub-section (2)(b) are deemed to have been given full effect to, and no further deduction is allowed in subsequent years. This provision is aimed at preventing the carry-forward of losses and depreciation attributable to disallowed deductions under the new regime, ensuring a clean break from the old regime's tax treatment.

      5. Exercise of Option

      Clause 202(4) sets out the mechanism for exercising the option to opt into or out of the new regime:

      • For persons with business or professional income:
        • Option must be exercised on or before the due date for filing the return (section 263(1)).
        • Once exercised, the option applies to subsequent years.
        • Option can be withdrawn only once (other than the year of exercise), after which re-entry is barred except in cases where the person ceases to have business/professional income.
      • For persons without business or professional income:
        • Option is exercised along with the return of income for the year.

      This structure is designed to prevent frequent switching between regimes, thereby providing stability and predictability in tax planning.

      6. Special Provisions for International Financial Services Centre (IFSC) Units

      Clause 202(5) provides a carve-out for units in IFSCs that exercised the option for any year from 2020-21 to 2023-24. For these units, certain deductions remain available, subject to specific conditions, recognizing the policy objective of promoting IFSCs as international financial hubs.

      Ambiguities and Potential Issues

      • The reference to various Schedules and Sections for disallowed deductions may create interpretative challenges, especially where cross-references are involved or where legislative amendments alter the referenced provisions.
      • The transition provisions for losses and depreciation may require careful adjustment to prevent disputes regarding the written down value of assets and the treatment of unabsorbed depreciation.
      • The rigid restriction on re-entry into the new regime after withdrawal (for business/professionals) could be viewed as unduly harsh in cases of genuine hardship or business restructuring.

      Practical Implications

      The practical impact of Clause 202 is far-reaching:

      • Taxpayers: Individuals and entities must carefully evaluate whether the new regime is beneficial, given the loss of deductions versus the benefit of lower tax rates. Tax planning will shift from maximizing deductions to optimizing gross income.
      • Businesses: SMEs and professionals will need to adapt their accounting practices, especially regarding depreciation and loss carry-forwards.
      • Tax Authorities: Reduced scope for exemptions and deductions simplifies assessments and reduces litigation, but initial transition may require clarifications and robust taxpayer education.
      • Compliance: The need to file prescribed forms and exercise options within strict timelines (as detailed in Rules 21AG and 21AGA) heightens the importance of procedural compliance.

      Comparative Analysis with Existing Provisions

      1. Comparison with Section 115BAC of the Income-tax Act, 1961

      Section 115BAC, introduced by the Finance Act, 2020 and subsequently amended, is the current statutory provision for the new tax regime. The key points of comparison are as follows:

      • Applicability: Initially, Section 115BAC applied only to individuals and HUFs. Recent amendments (effective AY 2024-25 onwards) have expanded its scope to include AOPs, BOIs, and artificial juridical persons, aligning with Clause 202.
      • Tax Slabs: The slab structure u/s 115BAC has evolved:
        • For AY 2026-27 onwards, the slabs mirror those in Clause 202 (up to Rs. 4 lakh: Nil Rs. 4-8 lakh: 5%, etc.), ensuring continuity and predictability.
      • Denial of Deductions/Exemptions: Both Clause 202 and Section 115BAC(2) deny a similar range of deductions and exemptions, though the specific references differ due to legislative drafting. Both prohibit set-off of losses attributable to such deductions and bar house property loss set-off.
      • Deeming Provisions: The deeming provision for losses and depreciation is present in both, preventing carry-forward of disallowed losses/depreciation.
      • Option Mechanism: Section 115BAC(5)/(6) and Clause 202(4) are substantially similar in prescribing how and when the option to opt in/out must be exercised, with similar restrictions on withdrawal and re-exercise.
      • IFSC Carve-out: Both contain special provisions for IFSC units, allowing continued deduction u/s 80LA, subject to conditions.
      • Procedural Rules: Section 115BAC is supplemented by Rules 21AG (for sub-section 5) and 21AGA (for sub-section 6), which specify the forms and electronic filing mechanisms. Clause 202 will require similar procedural rules, likely modeled on these existing rules.

      Key Distinctions:

      • Clause 202 is prospective and designed to replace/amalgamate the provisions of Section 115BAC in the new Income Tax Bill, 2025, providing a consolidated and updated framework.
      • The references to various schedules and sections in Clause 202 may differ in detail from those in Section 115BAC, reflecting the new legislative architecture.

      2. Comparison with Rules 21AG of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (Exercise of Option u/s 115BAC(5))

      Rule 21AG prescribes the procedure for exercising the option u/s 115BAC(5). Key features include:

      • The option is to be exercised in Form No. 10-IE, electronically filed (digital signature or EVC).
      • The Principal Director General of Income-tax (Systems) is empowered to specify filing procedures, data structure, verification, and security protocols.

      Clause 202(4) continues this approach, with the expectation that similar procedural rules will be notified for exercising the option under the new regime. The emphasis remains on electronic filing and secure, standardized processes.

      3. Comparison with Rule 21AGA of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (Exercise of Option u/s 115BAC(6))

      Rule 21AGA, effective from assessment year 2024-25, extends the procedural framework to a broader class of taxpayers (including AOPs, BOIs, and artificial juridical persons) and introduces Form No. 10-IEA for exercising or withdrawing the option. Key features:

      • Business/professional income assessees must file Form 10-IEA by the due date for return filing.
      • Others can opt in via their return of income.
      • Electronic filing and EVC/digital signature are mandatory.
      • Withdrawal of option is also to be done in Form 10-IEA.

      Clause 202's procedural requirements are in consonance with these rules, reinforcing the government's emphasis on digital compliance and procedural certainty.

      Comparative Table 

      AspectSection 115BAC of the Income-tax Act, 1961Clause 202 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025
      ApplicabilityInitially individuals & HUFs; later expanded to AOPs, BOIs, artificial juridical personsExplicitly includes individuals, HUFs, AOPs (other than co-op societies), BOIs, and artificial juridical persons
      Tax Slabs
      • 2021-2023: Nil up to Rs. 2.5 lakh, then 5% to 30% above Rs. 15 lakh
      • 2024-2025: Nil up to Rs. 3 lakh, then 5% to 30% above Rs. 15 lakh
      • 2026 onwards: Nil up to Rs. 4 lakh, then 5% to 30% above Rs. 24 lakh (as per latest amendments)
      • Nil up to Rs. 4 lakh
      • 5%: Rs. 4,00,001-Rs. 8,00,000
      • 10%: Rs. 8,00,001-Rs. 12,00,000
      • 15%: Rs. 12,00,001-Rs. 16,00,000
      • 20%: Rs. 16,00,001-Rs. 20,00,000
      • 25%: Rs. 20,00,001-Rs. 24,00,000
      • 30%: Above Rs. 24,00,000
      Exemptions/DeductionsBroadly disallows most exemptions/deductions under specified sections (e.g., section 10, 10AA, 16, 24, 32, 35, 80C, etc.), with some exceptions (e.g., employer contribution to NPS, 80JJAA)Disallows exemptions/deductions under specified Schedules/Sections, with some carve-outs (e.g., IFSC units)
      Loss Set-offNo set off of losses or depreciation attributable to disallowed deductions; no set off of house property loss with other headsSame principle, with explicit deeming provision for losses/depreciation
      Option MechanismOption exercised via prescribed forms (Form 10-IE/10-IEA); business/professional income assessees have stricter withdrawal/re-entry rulesSimilar mechanism, with reference to procedural rules and stricter withdrawal/re-entry restrictions
      IFSC UnitsDeduction u/s 80LA available to IFSC units under specified conditionsSimilar carve-out for IFSC units for years 2020-21 to 2023-24

      The most notable difference is the further rationalization and elevation of the exemption threshold and tax slabs in Clause 202, reflecting a continued policy of easing the tax burden on lower- and middle-income groups.

      Unique Features and Potential Conflicts

      • Broader Applicability: Clause 202 cements the inclusion of AOPs, BOIs, and artificial juridical persons, which were only later included u/s 115BAC through amendments and corresponding rules.
      • Higher Exemption Threshold: The move to a Rs. 4 lakh nil rate and higher slabs is a significant departure, likely to benefit a larger segment of taxpayers, especially in the lower and middle-income brackets.
      • Transition Management: The treatment of losses and depreciation, and the restriction on re-entry, could create hardships for taxpayers with fluctuating income profiles. There may be calls for more flexible provisions or hardship exceptions.
      • Potential for Litigation: As with any major legislative shift, ambiguities in cross-references, treatment of transitional losses, and procedural lapses could lead to disputes, necessitating judicial clarification.

      Conclusion

      Clause 202 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, marks a substantial evolution in the Indian tax landscape, building upon and refining the framework established by Section 115BAC and its allied rules. By further rationalizing tax slabs, broadening applicability, and eliminating most exemptions and deductions, the clause aims to create a simpler, more transparent, and equitable tax system. However, the transition to this regime will require careful management, robust procedural guidance, and possibly further legislative or judicial clarifications to address ambiguities and ensure taxpayer confidence.

      The interplay between Clause 202, Section 115BAC, and Rules 21AG and Rule 21AGA reflects a maturing policy approach that balances the goals of simplification, revenue generation, and taxpayer fairness. As the regime matures, future reforms may focus on addressing edge cases, refining procedural aspects, and ensuring that the new system delivers on its promise of simplicity and efficiency.


      Full Text:

      Clause 202 New tax regime for individuals, Hindu undivided family and others.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax