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
    NewsBills
    AMENDMENTS IN THE GST (Compensation to States) Act, 2017
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Court Upholds Deduction for Operational Hotel under Section 35AD Despite Administrative Delays
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Landmark Ruling: Leasing Businesses Entitled to Depreciation Benefits
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Court Decision on Convertible Debentures Expenses : Revenue or Capital Expenditure?
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Judgement on Feasibility Study Costs on Project Development: Revenue or Capital Expenditure?
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating Section 43B: Supreme Court Decision on Unutilised MODVAT Credit and Sales Tax Recoverable
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Failure to deduct TDS and Disallowance of expenses: Supreme Court Clarifies Retrospective Applicatio...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Deduction of Bad Debts: Supreme Court's Ruling on Section 36 Compliance and alternative claim u/s 37
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Principal-Agent Relationship in Telecom Sector and TDS u/s 194H: A Supreme Court Verdict
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Procedural Compliance vs. Substantive Justice: Balancing Procedural Rigidity and Transitional Hardsh...
    Maximizing Value in Insolvency: NCLAT Upholds CoC's Right to Negotiate Post-Challenge Mechanism
    Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation Period for Appeals before NCLAT under IBC in the Digital Age: E-...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Bounds of Tax Law: Supreme Court's Verdict on Section 153-C Assessments
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    The Delhi High Court's Guiding Light on Post-Search Tax Assessments: Application of Section 153C, po...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating Legal and Procedural Hurdles: A Charitable Institution's Quest for Tax Exemption and Regi...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Supreme Court Clarifies Jurisdictional Objections in Tax Assessments: A Landmark Order
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Invalid Notices and the Importance of Proper Jurisdiction: Lessons from a High-Profile Tax Case
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Upholding Precedent: Supreme Court's Stance on Taxation of Cross-Border Software Payments (Royalty)
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    The Cross-Border Software Purchase Conundrum: Supreme Court's Clarification on TDS for Non-Resident...
    Ensuring Justice in GST Registration Cancellations: A Landmark High Court Ruling
❯❯
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
    NewsBills
    Show AI Summary
    Regularisation of cess shortfalls where non levy arose from general practice allows government to sanction corrective levy.
    Section 8A empowers the government to regularize cases of non-levy or short-levy of the compensation cess where such under-collection arose from a prevailing general practice, providing an administrative mechanism to treat practice-driven cess shortfalls as regularizable liabilities under the GST compensation framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Deduction eligibility for operational hotels affirmed despite administrative delay in star classification, focusing on substantive compliance.
    The court addressed entitlement to a deduction under Section 35AD(5)(aa) where a hotel began operations and generated income in the relevant year and a timely application for star classification was submitted, but formal certification was delayed due to administrative inspections; the court applied a purposive construction to allow the deduction when substantive operational conditions were satisfied and delay was not the assessee's fault.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Depreciation entitlement for leasing companies where contractual ownership and business use are established, allowing higher depreciation rates.
    A lessor retains entitlement to depreciation where lease terms demonstrate exclusive ownership rights, repossession power, return obligations and inspection rights, and where the asset is used in the course of the lessor's leasing business; actual physical use by the lessor is not required. Leasing activity that functionally equates to hiring can qualify assets for an enhanced rate of depreciation despite registration in the lessee's name.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revenue classification of debenture issuance expenses upheld as revenue expenditure despite later conversion into equity.
    Expenses incurred to issue convertible debentures that are raised to provide working capital are to be treated as revenue expenditure because classification depends on the purpose and usage of the expenditure, and future conversion into shares does not change its revenue character.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Classification of feasibility study costs: expansion-related studies without new assets qualify as revenue expenditure.
    Whether feasibility study expenditures are revenue or capital depends on purpose and benefit: costs to obtain an enduring benefit or create a new capital asset are capital; costs incurred to expand the same business, under unity of control and without creation of new assets, are revenue in nature.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Section 43B actual-payment requirement prevents deduction of unutilised MODVAT credit and sales tax recoverable balances.
    Section 43B permits deduction only for sums payable as tax, duty, cess or fee that are actually paid in the relevant previous year (or paid before the return due date where a statutory liability existed). Unutilised MODVAT credit is an entitlement to adjust future excise liabilities and not an actual payment; sales tax in a recoverable account is a cost adjustment, not discharge of statutory liability. Because no excise liability existed at the relevant year end, the proviso does not apply and such credits do not meet the Section 43B payment requirement for deduction.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Retrospective application of curative amendment to TDS deadline clarified, affecting disallowance of expenses under the tax provision.
    The Court addressed whether an amendment extending the time to deposit TDS should be applied retrospectively to govern the operation of a statutory disallowance provision. After reviewing prior amendments, explanatory materials, and precedent on curative measures, the Court characterised the later amendment as curative and directed its retrospective application to the date of insertion of the original provision, thereby affecting the applicability of the disallowance to expenses where TDS was deposited by the extended deadline.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Bad debt deduction criteria clarified under Sections 36 and 37 - stricter substantiation required; capital expenditure excluded.
    Entitlement to a bad debt deduction requires statutory compliance and adequate substantiation; an accounting write off alone does not suffice. The assessee's failure to produce coherent documentary evidence of the nature and terms of the advance, inconsistent characterisation of the payment, and the capital nature of the outflow precluded treatment as a business deduction. The general business expenditure provision does not avail items that are within or expressly excluded by the bad debt framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Commission characterization: discounts to franchisees are sales margins, not commission; therefore no TDS obligation under Section 194-H.
    The Court held that the characterisation of receipts as commission or brokerage under Section 194-H requires agency relationships established by control, fiduciary obligations and the ability to bind the principal. Franchisees/distributors who buy prepaid products at discounts, bear commercial risk, determine resale margins and lack pricing control operate independently. Their discounted purchase price and resale margin constitute sale proceeds, not commission for services rendered on behalf of the provider, and thus do not fall within Section 194-H's withholding obligation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Procedural timelines for charitable registration may be treated as directory to mitigate transitional electronic filing hardships and enable merit review.
    The tribunal treated administrative timeline extensions and electronic-filing difficulties as relevant to construing statutory deadlines for charitable approval, regarding the contested filing timelines as directory rather than strictly mandatory where substantive compliance existed, and directed merit-based reconsideration instead of dismissal solely for technical delay.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    CoC negotiation rights preserved after challenge mechanism, allowing revised proposals to maximize corporate value under insolvency framework.
    The CoC retains authority to negotiate with resolution applicants and to call for revisions to resolution plans post-challenge mechanism to maximize corporate value; Regulation 39(1A) is procedural and does not bar such substantive negotiation, and the conclusion of a challenge mechanism does not vest the highest bidder with an automatic right to approval, leaving the CoC's commercial judgment paramount.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation period for IBC appeals runs from e filing date, with time to obtain certified copies excluded.
    The period for filing an appeal under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is to be computed from the date of e filing, with allowance for later submission of a physical copy; time taken to obtain certified copies is excluded from the limitation calculation in line with the Limitation Act, producing a framework harmonising tribunal rules, statutory principles, and technological filing practices.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Incriminating evidence requirement for search-based tax assessments: without it, 153 C assessments fail; reassessment under 147/148 remains possible.
    Assessments under Section 153-C require incriminating material discovered during search and seizure; absent such material, those assessments lack evidentiary foundation and may be set aside, though the Revenue may pursue reassessment under alternate provisions if independent legal grounds exist.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Post-search assessment requires reliance on incriminating material discovered during search to validate reassessment of income.
    Post-search assessments must be founded on incriminating material discovered during the search; reassessments cannot be based on material unconnected to search records. Third party assessments require a demonstrable link between the impugned income and the incriminating material within those records. The court reaffirmed precedent distinguishing ordinary reassessment from search triggered reassessment and directed re determination consistent with those legal principles to preserve procedural fairness.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Procedural fairness: clarifying timing for final registration under section 80G prevents denial for pre approval activities.
    The tribunal identified procedural deficiencies in the tax authority's handling of a charity's final registration application, finding that a single short-notice hearing failed to secure adequate opportunity to be heard and underscoring procedural fairness. It further clarified that provisional approval is a predicate to applying for final registration and that activities begun prior to provisional approval do not automatically preclude later final registration, rejecting a restrictive timing construction and directing fresh consideration consistent with those legal principles.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdictional objection waiver: assessee's participation after notice bars later challenge, remedial reassessment permitted within timeframe.
    The Supreme Court held that an assessee who participates in assessment proceedings after receiving an assessment-process notice without timely challenging the assessing officer's jurisdiction is barred from later disputing that jurisdiction under the statutory limitation. It set aside the High Court's order and directed the assessing officer to complete the assessment within a short prescribed timeframe, with the proviso that the assessee may not plead limitation in that completion process.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdiction in tax assessments: improper issuing authority can invalidate notices and require reissuance by competent authority.
    Jurisdiction in tax assessments was the pivotal issue: the record showed assessment power lay with the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), not the subordinate officer who issued the contested notice, rendering that notice issued without jurisdiction. The petition also challenged adherence to principles of natural justice. The court refrained from adjudicating the substantive assessment and demand because those aspects were subject to statutory appeal, distinguishing jurisdictional defects from appealable merits and allowing issuance by the competent authority in conformity with procedural safeguards.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Taxation of cross border software payments as royalty reinforced; precedent remains binding despite pending review, so withholding obligations persist.
    Supreme Court reaffirmed that payments to non residents for software are to be treated as royalty for withholding tax purposes, holding that a pending review against an earlier precedent does not suspend that precedent's application; procedural limits on review under the Code of Civil Procedure prevent indefinite postponement of settled law, requiring taxpayers and payors in cross border software transactions to comply with prevailing withholding obligations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Royalty characterisation of cross-border software dictates TDS obligations based on transaction substance and applicable DTAA.
    Whether payments to non-resident suppliers for computer software constitute royalty and attract TDS depends on the transaction's terms and economic substance; payments reflecting a one-time purchase or transfer of goods do not automatically qualify as royalty. Applicable Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) provisions that are more favourable to the taxpayer govern taxability, and withholding obligations arise only if, after applying treaty benefits and examining substance, the payment is chargeable under domestic law or the DTAA.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Procedural fairness: administrative cancellation of registration demands reasoned decision-making to uphold equality and due process protections.
    Procedural fairness in administrative GST cancellations is the central concern: cancellation of a proprietorship's GST registration for non-filing of returns raises whether authorities considered exceptional personal and pandemic-related circumstances before terminating registration and whether orders contain adequate, contemporaneous reasons so that affected persons can understand and challenge the basis of the action.

    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

      Addresses the mechanism for granting tax credit for MAT/AMT paid in excess of regular tax liability by Other than Corporate : Clause 206(13)-(16) of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 115JD of the Income-tax

      7 May, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Clause 206 Special provision for minimum alternate tax and alternate minimum tax.

      Income Tax Bill, 2025

      Introduction

      Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) and Alternate Minimum Tax (AMT) have long been significant mechanisms within the Indian income-tax framework, designed to ensure that entities with substantial "book profits" or adjusted total income contribute a minimum level of tax, even when their taxable income is reduced by various deductions, incentives, or exemptions. The introduction of Clause 206 in the Income Tax Bill, 2025, continues this legacy, but with notable refinements and expansions in its scope and application. This commentary focuses specifically on sub-clauses (13) to (16) of Clause 206, which deal with the regime for MAT/AMT tax credit, its carry forward, set-off, and adjustment in case of reassessment or appellate orders. These provisions are then compared in depth with the existing framework u/s 115JD of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

      The analysis herein provides a detailed breakdown of the statutory language, legislative intent, operational mechanics, and practical implications for taxpayers, as well as a comparative evaluation highlighting both continuity and divergence between the new and old regimes.

      Objective and Purpose

      The legislative intent behind MAT and AMT provisions is to counteract aggressive tax planning that exploits deductions, exemptions, and incentives, resulting in minimal or nil tax liability despite significant accounting profits. The MAT/AMT credit mechanism, as addressed in both Clause 206 (2025 Bill) and Section 115JD (1961 Act), aims to ensure equity by allowing taxpayers to recoup excess MAT/AMT paid during years of low regular tax liability in subsequent years when regular tax liability exceeds MAT/AMT. The credit mechanism thus prevents MAT/AMT from being a sunk cost and aligns the minimum tax regime with principles of fairness and horizontal equity.

      Sub-clauses (13)-(16) of Clause 206, and the corresponding provisions in Section 115JD, are central to the operationalization of this intent, as they set out the rules for determination, carry forward, set-off, and adjustment of MAT/AMT credit, balancing the objectives of revenue protection and taxpayer relief.

      Detailed Analysis of Clause 206(13)-(16) of Income Tax Bill, 2025

      Clause 206(13): Credit for MAT/AMT Paid

      This provision establishes the foundational rule for MAT/AMT credit: the taxpayer is entitled to a credit equal to the excess of MAT/AMT paid over the regular tax liability for the relevant tax year. The language "difference of the tax paid ... and tax payable ... as per the other provisions" mirrors the computational logic in Section 115JD(2) of the 1961 Act.

      Key points:

      • The credit is available only for the differential amount (i.e., MAT/AMT paid less regular tax payable).
      • It applies to any "assessee" covered by sub-section (1), which includes both companies (MAT) and other specified persons (AMT), thus broadening the scope compared to the earlier regime.
      • The provision is automatic; once MAT/AMT is paid, the entitlement to credit arises without further conditions.

      Clause 206(14): Conditions and Limitations on Credit

      This sub-clause imposes two critical limitations:

      • No Interest on MAT/AMT Credit: Taxpayers are not entitled to any interest on the MAT/AMT credit allowed. This aligns with the principle that MAT/AMT credit is a benefit, not a refundable deposit or advance tax, and is consistent with Section 115JD(3) of the 1961 Act.
      • Foreign Tax Credit Adjustment: If the foreign tax credit (FTC) allowed against MAT/AMT exceeds the FTC admissible against regular tax, the excess is ignored when computing MAT/AMT credit. This prevents double benefit and ensures that FTC does not artificially inflate MAT/AMT credit. The specific cross-reference to section 159(1) or (2) (which correspond to sections 90, 90A, and 91 of the 1961 Act) ensures harmonization with India's tax treaties and unilateral relief provisions.

      The provision thus addresses both administrative fairness (no interest) and international tax integrity (FTC adjustment).

      Clause 206(15): Carry Forward and Set-Off of MAT/AMT Credit

      This sub-clause operationalizes the mechanics of MAT/AMT credit utilization:

      • Set-Off Trigger: Set-off is permitted in years when regular tax liability exceeds MAT/AMT liability. This ensures that MAT/AMT credit is only used when the taxpayer is otherwise subject to higher regular tax.
      • Set-Off Quantum: The quantum of set-off is capped at the excess of regular tax over MAT/AMT for the relevant year, preventing over-utilization.
      • Carry Forward Period: The credit can be carried forward for up to fifteen tax years (aligning with the "assessment year" in the 1961 Act), ensuring a reasonable window for utilization while preventing indefinite accumulation.

      This structure is designed to balance taxpayer relief with revenue certainty, and is substantially similar to the carry forward and set-off rules in Section 115JD(4)-(5).

      Clause 206(16): Adjustment of Credit on Reassessment or Appeal

      This sub-clause addresses the dynamic nature of tax liability, recognizing that assessments may be modified by appellate, revisionary, or rectification orders. It mandates that the MAT/AMT credit allowed must be correspondingly adjusted if the regular tax or MAT/AMT liability for a year changes due to such orders.

      Key implications:

      • Ensures accuracy and fairness by aligning MAT/AMT credit with true tax liability as finally determined.
      • Prevents windfall gains or losses arising from subsequent reassessment or appellate orders.
      • Mirrors the language and intent of Section 115JD(6) of the 1961 Act.

      Practical Implications

      The practical impact of these provisions is significant for taxpayers subject to MAT/AMT:

      • Cash Flow Management: The ability to carry forward and set off MAT/AMT credit over fifteen years provides substantial relief, allowing taxpayers to better manage cash flows and plan for future tax liabilities.
      • Compliance Requirements: Taxpayers must maintain detailed records of MAT/AMT paid, credit available, set-off utilized, and carry forward balances, as well as monitor changes due to appellate orders.
      • Interaction with Foreign Tax Credit: Multinational taxpayers must carefully compute FTC for both MAT/AMT and regular tax, ensuring that excess FTC is not double-counted in MAT/AMT credit calculations.
      • No Interest Component: The absence of interest on MAT/AMT credit may affect the time value of money for taxpayers, especially if utilization is delayed for several years.
      • Sunset on Carry Forward: The fifteen-year limit is generous but finite, necessitating proactive tax planning to ensure credit is not forfeited due to expiry.

      From a revenue perspective, these provisions provide certainty and prevent indefinite deferral of tax payments, while also ensuring that the MAT/AMT regime does not become unduly punitive.

      Comparative Analysis: Clause 206(13)-(16) vs. Section 115JD

      1. Scope and Applicability

      Section 115JD, as originally enacted, applied primarily to non-corporate taxpayers subject to AMT u/s 115JC, including LLPs and other specified persons. Clause 206(13)-(16) of the 2025 Bill, however, applies to all assessees covered by MAT or AMT under Clause 206, including companies, co-operative societies, and other categories as per the new Table. Thus, the 2025 Bill reflects a more unified and comprehensive approach, integrating MAT and AMT credit rules under a single provision.

      2. Computation of Credit

      Both Section 115JD(2) and Clause 206(13) adopt the same computational logic: credit is the excess of MAT/AMT paid over regular tax liability for the year. Both provisions ensure that only the "extra" tax paid under MAT/AMT is available as credit, precluding double counting or overstatement.

      3. Foreign Tax Credit Adjustment

      Section 115JD(2) (proviso) and Clause 206(14)(b) both address the scenario where FTC allowed against MAT/AMT exceeds FTC allowable against regular tax. Both provide that the excess is to be ignored in computing MAT/AMT credit, thus preventing manipulation of MAT/AMT credit through aggressive use of FTC. The language and intent are substantially similar, though Clause 206(14) references the new section numbers (159(1)/(2)) corresponding to the new Bill's structure.

      4. Interest on MAT/AMT Credit

      Section 115JD(3) and Clause 206(14)(a) both categorically deny any interest on MAT/AMT credit, maintaining revenue neutrality and administrative simplicity.

      5. Carry Forward and Set-Off Period

      Section 115JD(4) and Clause 206(15) both permit carry forward of MAT/AMT credit for up to fifteen years (increased from ten years by the Finance Act, 2017). The set-off rules are also identical: credit can be set off only in years when regular tax exceeds MAT/AMT, and only to the extent of the excess.

      6. Adjustment on Reassessment or Appeal

      Section 115JD(6) and Clause 206(16) both provide for adjustment of MAT/AMT credit in case the tax liability for a year is modified by an order passed under the Act. This ensures that MAT/AMT credit reflects the final tax positions and prevents discrepancies.

      7. Exclusions/Non-Applicability

      While Section 115JD(7) excludes persons who have exercised certain options (e.g., under new concessional tax regimes), Clause 206(18) contains a broader list of exclusions, including specified funds, certain individuals/HUFs with income below a threshold, and others. However, as regards the MAT/AMT credit mechanism itself, both provisions are structurally similar.

      8. Structural and Drafting Differences

      The 2025 Bill reorganizes and modernizes the language, aligning references to new section numbers and updating terminology (e.g., "tax year" instead of "assessment year"). The substantive rules, however, remain closely aligned, reflecting legislative intent to preserve continuity while updating the statutory framework.

      Ambiguities and Potential Issues

      While the provisions are generally clear, certain areas may give rise to interpretational or practical challenges:

      • Interaction with Other Tax Regimes: With the proliferation of concessional tax regimes and options under the new Bill, careful attention must be paid to the interplay between MAT/AMT credit rules and eligibility for such regimes.
      • Foreign Tax Credit Complexity: The computation of excess FTC, particularly for multinational groups with complex structures, may require detailed guidance or rules to prevent disputes.
      • Transition Issues: For taxpayers transitioning from the old Act to the new Bill, rules will be needed to address carry forward and utilization of MAT/AMT credit accumulated under the 1961 Act.
      • Administrative Burden: The fifteen-year carry forward necessitates robust record-keeping and tracking, which may be challenging for taxpayers with frequent organizational changes (e.g., mergers, demergers, restructuring).

      Clause-by-Clause Comparison and Analysis

      ProvisionClause 206 of Income Tax Bill, 2025Section 115JDIncome Tax Act, 1961Analysis
      Eligibility for CreditClause 206(13): Credit for tax paid under MAT/AMT, i.e., tax paid under sub-section (1) in excess of regular tax.Section 115JD(1)-(2): Credit for AMT paid u/s 115JC in excess of regular income-tax.

      Both provisions operate on the same principle: credit is for the excess MAT/AMT paid over regular tax.

      Clause 206 is broader, covering both MAT (companies) and AMT (non-corporates), whereas 115JD is limited to AMT for non-corporates.

      Quantum of CreditClause 206(13): Difference between MAT/AMT and regular tax.Section 115JD(2): Excess of AMT paid over regular income-tax.Substantially similar in computation methodology.
      Interest on CreditClause 206(14)(a): No interest payable on credit.Section 115JD(3): No interest payable on credit.Identical treatment, reflecting the policy that credit is a relief, not a deposit.
      Foreign Tax Credit AdjustmentClause 206(14)(b): Excess FTC claimed against MAT/AMT over regular tax to be ignored in credit computation.Section 115JD(2) Proviso: Similar adjustment for excess FTC claimed against AMT over regular tax.

      Both provisions prevent double benefit of FTC.

      Clause 206 references section 159 (corresponding to sections 90, 90A, 91 under 1961 Act).

      Carry Forward PeriodClause 206(15): 15 tax years from the year credit arises.Section 115JD(4): 15 assessment years from the year credit arises (earlier 10 years).

      Both provide for a 15-year carry forward period, ensuring ample opportunity for set-off.

      Terminology differs ("tax year" vs. "assessment year"), but substance is the same.

      Set-Off MechanismClause 206(15): Set-off allowed to the extent regular tax exceeds MAT/AMT in any year; balance carried forward.Section 115JD(5): Set-off allowed to the extent regular tax exceeds AMT in any year; balance carried forward.

      Mechanism is identical in both provisions.

      Variation in Credit Due to Subsequent OrdersClause 206(16): Credit to be increased/reduced in line with changes in tax liability due to orders under the Act.Section 115JD(6): Similar variation in credit as a result of orders under the Act.

      Both ensure credit reflects final tax liability as determined.

      Exclusions/Non-applicability

      Clause 206(18): MAT/AMT provisions do not apply to certain entities (e.g., life insurance companies, those opting for specified alternative tax regimes, small taxpayers below threshold, specified funds).

      Section 115JD(7): Not applicable to persons opting for specified alternative tax regimes (e.g., 115BAC, 115BAD, 115BAE).

      Both provide for exclusions, though Clause 206 is more comprehensive, reflecting broader scope.

      Conclusion

      Clause 206(13)-(16) of Income Tax Bill, 2025, represents a clear continuation and consolidation of the MAT/AMT credit regime established u/s 115JD of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The provisions are carefully crafted to ensure that taxpayers subject to minimum tax regimes are not unduly penalized, while also safeguarding the revenue base. The detailed rules for credit determination, carry forward, set-off, and adjustment provide both certainty and fairness, and the fifteen-year window for utilization is generous by international standards. The refinements in drafting and structure reflect the evolving landscape of Indian tax law, particularly in the context of increasing globalization and the proliferation of tax options. However, successful implementation will depend on clear transitional rules, robust administrative procedures, and ongoing judicial and executive guidance to address emergent ambiguities.


      Full Text:

      Clause 206 Special provision for minimum alternate tax and alternate minimum tax.

       

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax