Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

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

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

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ----
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
    Retrospective Cancellation of GST Registration: Analysis of Delhi High Court’s Ruling in 2024 (1) ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Deciphering Tax Implications on Capital Reduction: Navigating the Complexities of Section 115QA in I...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Navigating Regulatory Compliance: Analysis of a CHA License Revocation and Restoration Case
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting Section 153A: ITAT Delhi's Stand on Incriminating Material in Assessments: Assessments ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reaffirming the Bounds of Section 153A: Analysis of Delhi High Court's Approach: Assessment post sea...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating Rectification and Revised Returns: Legal Insights from ITAT Bangalore's Ruling
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Mutual Fund Gains and Deemed Dividends: Analyzing the Delhi High Court's Landmark Judgment
    Case LawsCustoms
    Judicial Scrutiny of Customs Seizure and Redemption under the Indian Legal Framework: Foreign Curren...
    Case LawsCustoms
    The Duty of Diligence: Understanding the Legal Implications for Customs Brokers
    Case LawsCustoms
    Legal Analysis of a Customs Appeal Case Involving Mandatory Pre-Deposit Requirements
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Legal Elucidation of Homeopathic Product Classification under Central Excise Tariff Act: Medicament ...
    The Supreme Court's In-Depth Ruling on Corporate Insolvency: Legal Implications Explored
    Money Laundering and Bail: Supreme Court's Interpretation of Section 45 PMLA
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessing Income under Section 147 Post-Quashment of Sections 153A/153C: The Waiver of Limitation ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 153A of the Income Tax Act: A Critical Analysis of the Supreme Court's Interpretation in the...
    The Intersection of Politics, Corruption, and Judicial Review: A Case Study: Validity of order of Hi...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Clarity and Precision in Tax Penalty Proceedings: Insights from a High Court Judgment
    NCLAT's Authority to Recall Judgments: The Intersection of Tribunal Authority and Justice
    Detention and Release of Goods under CGST Act: Discrepancies in the CGST registration of the consign...
    The Detention of Goods under GST Law: Doubts regarding the genuineness of the consignee
❯❯
MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

    +

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

    NOTE:

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

    TMI Notes

    Back

    All TMI Notes

    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
      No Records Found

      TMI Notes

      Back

      All TMI Notes

      whatsappJoin Channel
      Showing Results for : Reset Filters

      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