Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

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

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

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ----
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Jurisdictional Prerequisites for Initiating Reassessment u/s 148: Non-Depoist of TDS by the Employer
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revisiting the Scope of "Record" u/s 263: Embracing Subsequent Records
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Record": Revisiting the Scope of Revision Powers u/s 264 and Rectification of Mistake ...
    The Doctrine of Natural Justice in GST Proceedings: A Case Study on Show Cause Notice u/s 74"
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) and the Concept of "Plant" under GST: Supreme Court
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: High Court's Stance on Quashing Show Cause Notices
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: Upholding the Principles of Natural Justice
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Re-Assessment Notices Issued During COVID-19 Lockdown
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Unraveling the Mineral Rights Regime: The Supreme Court's Landmark Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Assessment Regime: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Evidentiary Value of Statements Recorded During Income Tax Surveys: A Judicial Analysis
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment: Ensuring Compliance with Statutory Provisions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment Mechanism: Jurisdictional Limits in Income Tax Proceedings
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessment Notices for AY 2013-14: Upholding the Doctrine of Limitation
    Principles of Tax Fairness and Mens Rea: Quashes Penalty for Mere Technical Errors
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Decoding the Mandatory Timelines: A Thorough Examination of the Income Tax Assessment Order Nullific...
    Expiry of E-Way Bill AND Mens Rea: Technical Violation Alone Insufficient for Penalty Imposition
    Maintainability of Appeals: High Court Upholds Strict Interpretation of Limitation Provisions in GST...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Stay of Tax Demand: Interpreting the Discretionary Power u/s 220(6) of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Technical Services" under Tax Treaties: A Comprehensive Analysis
❯❯
MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

    +

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

    NOTE:

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

    TMI Notes

    Back

    All TMI Notes

    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
      No Records Found

      TMI Notes

      Back

      All TMI Notes

      whatsappJoin Channel
      Showing Results for : Reset Filters

      The Interplay of Special and General Provisions : Clause 206(12) of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 115JE of Income Tax Act, 1961

      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

      The concept of Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) and Alternate Minimum Tax (AMT) has been a cornerstone of Indian direct tax legislation, designed to ensure that companies and certain non-corporate entities pay a minimum amount of tax, even if their income is substantially reduced or eliminated through various deductions and incentives. The introduction of Clause 206 in the Income Tax Bill, 2025, continues this legacy, providing an elaborate framework for MAT and AMT, while also laying down the mechanics for their computation, exceptions, and related procedural requirements.

      Within this comprehensive provision, Clause 206(12) assumes a pivotal role by acting as a "savings" or "application" clause, stipulating the continued applicability of other provisions of the Act to persons covered under Clause 206, except where expressly overridden. This is conceptually similar to Section 115JE of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which serves a parallel function within the older statutory framework, particularly in the context of AMT for non-corporate entities. This commentary provides a detailed legal analysis of Clause 206(12), explores its objectives, practical implications, and compares it with the existing Section 115JE, highlighting the legal, procedural, and policy nuances.

      Objective and Purpose

      The legislative intent behind such "application clauses" is to ensure that, while specific rules for MAT/AMT override the general provisions to the extent of inconsistency, the remainder of the Act continues to apply to the affected assessees. This is crucial for legal certainty and administrative efficiency, preventing interpretative gaps or unintended exclusions from the general tax framework.

      Historically, the introduction of MAT (via Section 115JB and its predecessors) and later AMT (via Chapter XII-BA, including Section 115JE) was aimed at ensuring that entities with substantial book profits or adjusted total income, but who availed themselves of various deductions and exemptions, nonetheless contributed a minimum amount of tax. However, the computation mechanisms and procedural aspects under MAT/AMT differ from the regular tax regime, necessitating explicit clarification regarding the continued application of the rest of the Act.

      Clause 206(12) of the 2025 Bill is thus designed to serve two interlinked purposes:

      • To confirm that all other provisions of the Income Tax Act apply to MAT/AMT assessees, except where specifically excluded by Clause 206 itself;
      • To ensure seamless integration of the MAT/AMT provisions into the overall tax framework, thereby avoiding interpretative disputes about the applicability of general provisions (e.g., procedural rules, penalty provisions, appeal mechanisms, etc.) to MAT/AMT cases.

      Detailed Analysis of Clause 206(12)

      Clause 206(12) is a classic example of a "non-obstante cum saving" provision. The phrase "Save as otherwise provided in this section" means that wherever Clause 206 prescribes a special rule (e.g., computation of book profit, rates of MAT/AMT, exclusions), that special rule overrides the general Act. In all other respects, the Act applies as usual.

      The implications of this are multi-fold:

      • Scope of Application: Every assessee to whom Clause 206 applies-companies, co-operative societies, units in International Financial Services Centres, and other non-corporate entities-is subject to the general provisions of the Act, except to the extent overridden by Clause 206.
      • Procedural Provisions: Provisions relating to assessment, appeals, penalties, interest, rectification, and recovery are all applicable to MAT/AMT assessees, unless there is an express or implied exclusion in Clause 206.
      • Substantive Provisions: Other substantive provisions (such as those relating to set-off and carry forward of losses, tax credits, etc.) are applicable, subject to the specific computation and credit mechanisms provided in Clause 206 (e.g., sub-clauses (10), (13)-(16)).
      • Interpretative Clarification: The provision forestalls any argument that the special regime is a self-contained code to the exclusion of the rest of the Act, except where the section itself so provides.

      Illustrative Scenarios of Application

      1. Assessment and Appeals:
        If an assessee is aggrieved by the computation of MAT/AMT, the usual appeal and revision mechanisms under the Act remain available, as Clause 206(12) does not exclude their operation.
      2. Penalties and Prosecutions:
        Penalty provisions for under-reporting, misreporting, or non-compliance with procedural requirements (such as failure to furnish the MAT/AMT report under Clause 206(11)) continue to apply.
      3. Interest Provisions:
        Interest for default in payment of advance tax or for delay in filing returns is applicable, except where Clause 206 itself provides otherwise (e.g., sub-clause (9) excludes interest on refunds under sub-clause (8)).
      4. Set-off and Carry Forward:
        The set-off and carry forward of losses and unabsorbed depreciation are regulated by Clause 206(10) and (15), but, subject to these, the general regime applies.
      5. Tax Credits:
        MAT/AMT credit mechanisms are specifically provided in Clause 206(13)-(16), but general provisions relating to credits, if not inconsistent, would apply.

      Exceptions and Overriding Effects

      The opening words "Save as otherwise provided in this section" are crucial. They ensure that wherever Clause 206 lays down a different rule (e.g., computation of book profit, carry forward of MAT credit for 15 years, etc.), those special rules prevail over the general Act. For instance:

      • Clause 206(10) specifically provides that MAT computation does not affect the determination of amounts to be carried forward under certain sections.
      • Clause 206(13)-(16) prescribe a special regime for MAT/AMT credit, overriding general set-off provisions.
      • Clause 206(9) excludes interest on certain refunds, overriding the general rule in Section 244A of the Act.
      • Clause 206(18) lists out classes of persons to whom MAT/AMT does not apply, even if they would otherwise be covered by the general Act.

      Thus, the "application clause" is always subject to the specific overriding or exclusionary provisions within Clause 206 itself.

      Practical Implications

      The practical effect of Clause 206(12) is to ensure administrative and legal continuity for MAT/AMT assessees:

      • For Taxpayers: They are required to comply not only with the special MAT/AMT provisions but also with all other applicable provisions of the Act, such as return filing, audit, assessment, and compliance procedures.
      • For Tax Authorities: The assessing and appellate authorities retain their powers under the Act, subject to the special computation and procedural rules in Clause 206.
      • For Legal Interpretation: The provision prevents arguments that the MAT/AMT regime is a "complete code" to the exclusion of the rest of the Act, except where specifically so provided.
      • For Compliance: Taxpayers must be vigilant in applying both the MAT/AMT rules and the general Act, and in identifying areas where the special regime overrides the general law.

      Comparative Analysis: Clause 206(12) vs Section 115JE

      1. Placement and Scope

      • Section 115JE: Located in Chapter XII-BA, which deals with "Special Provisions Relating to Certain Persons Other Than a Company." It applies specifically to the AMT regime, primarily for LLPs and certain non-corporate assessees.
      • Clause 206(12): Embedded within a single, consolidated section governing both MAT and AMT for a wide range of entities, including companies, co-operative societies, and other non-corporate entities.

      2. Wording and Breadth

      • Section 115JE: Applies "save as otherwise provided in this Chapter," i.e., the overriding effect is limited to the chapter, which includes multiple sections on AMT.
      • Clause 206(12): Applies "save as otherwise provided in this section," i.e., the overriding effect is only to the specific section (Clause 206) and not to a broader chapter. This tightens the focus of the override and may reduce ambiguity about the extent of the special regime.

      3. Assessee Coverage

      • Section 115JE: Originally applied only to LLPs, later expanded to "a person" (including individuals, HUFs, AOPs, BOIs, etc.) covered under the AMT regime.
      • Clause 206(12): Covers a much broader set of assessees, including companies (MAT), units in IFSCs, co-operative societies, and other non-corporate entities, as detailed in the Table in Clause 206(1).

      4. Integration with Special Regime

      • Section 115JE: The saving clause operates in the context of a chapter, with separate sections for computation, credit, etc.
      • Clause 206(12): The entire MAT/AMT regime is consolidated in a single, detailed section, with the saving clause referring to "this section." This drafting approach may facilitate easier administration and interpretation, but also places greater emphasis on the precise wording of the section.

      5. Potential Ambiguities and Issues

      • Section 115JE: The reference to "this Chapter" could create interpretive issues where provisions in other chapters (e.g., general penalty or procedure sections) are arguably inconsistent with the AMT regime.
      • Clause 206(12): By limiting the override to "this section," the drafters may have sought to minimize such ambiguities. However, the practical effect will depend on the clarity and completeness of Clause 206 itself.

      6. Evolution and Legislative Policy

      • Section 115JE: Was a necessary adjunct to the introduction of AMT for non-corporate entities in 2011, mirroring the approach taken in the MAT regime for companies.
      • Clause 206(12): Reflects a policy shift towards consolidation and uniformity, bringing MAT and AMT under a single, harmonized framework, and ensuring that the application clause is consistently worded for all affected assessees.

      Comparative Table: Clause 206(12) vs. Section 115JE

      AspectClause 206(12) in the Income Tax Bill, 2025Section 115JE of the Income-tax Act, 1961
      Wording"Save as otherwise provided in this section, all other provisions of this Act shall apply to every assessee mentioned in this section.""Save as otherwise provided in this Chapter, all other provisions of this Act shall apply to a person referred to in this Chapter."
      ScopeAll assessees covered by MAT/AMT (companies, non-corporates, IFSC units, co-operative societies, etc.)Non-corporate entities covered by AMT (originally LLPs, later expanded)
      ReferenceThis section (Clause 206)This Chapter (XII-BA)
      Exceptions/Carve-outsDetailed and specific (e.g., sub-sections (9), (17), (18))General, based on Chapter structure
      Procedural RequirementsAccountant's report mandatory (sub-section (11))No explicit requirement in Section 115JE
      IntegrationPart of a consolidated MAT/AMT regimeAdjunct to existing AMT regime

      Practical and Policy Implications

      The differences in drafting and placement between the two provisions have practical consequences:

      • Clarity and Certainty: The move to a single, consolidated section with a tightly drafted application clause under the 2025 Bill may enhance clarity and reduce litigation over the applicability of general provisions.
      • Administrative Efficiency: Tax authorities and taxpayers benefit from having a single reference point for the MAT/AMT regime, with the application clause immediately accessible.
      • Potential for Overlooked Inconsistencies: The effectiveness of the "save as otherwise" formula depends on the comprehensiveness of Clause 206. Any omissions or ambiguities in the special rules could lead to interpretive disputes about the applicability of general provisions.

      Conclusion

      Clause 206(12) in the Income Tax Bill, 2025, serves as a crucial link between the special MAT/AMT regime and the general provisions of the Income Tax Act. Its function as a "saving clause" ensures that, except where specifically overridden, the entire machinery of the Act applies to MAT/AMT assessees. Compared to Section 115JE of the Income-tax Act, 1961, Clause 206(12) is broader in scope, more precise in its drafting, and better integrated into a consolidated special regime. The shift towards a more unified approach reflects evolving legislative policy and aims to enhance legal certainty and administrative efficiency. However, the ultimate effectiveness of the provision will depend on the clarity and completeness of the special rules set out in Clause 206 itself, and on the vigilance of both taxpayers and the tax administration in navigating the interplay between the special and general regimes.

      Alternative Titles for the Commentary

      1. "The Interplay of Special and General Provisions: An Analysis of Clause 206(12) and Section 115JE in India's Income Tax Law"
      2. "Saving Clauses in Tax Legislation: Comparative Insights from Clause 206(12) and Section 115JE"
      3. "MAT and AMT Regimes under the New Income Tax Bill: Scope, Application, and Continuity"
      4. "From Section 115JE to Clause 206(12): Evolution of Application Clauses in India's Alternate Tax Regimes"

       


      Full Text:

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

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax