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
    Evolution of Appellate Remedies in Indian Income Tax Law : Clause 356 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 V...
    Appellate Remedies against Advance Rulings : Clause 389 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 245...
    Evolution of Procedural Regulation in Advance Rulings under Indian Tax Law : Clause 388 of Income Ta...
    The Transformation of Advance Rulings Powers under Indian Tax Law : Clause 387 of the Income Tax Bil...
    Fraud, Misrepresentation, and the Void Ab Initio Doctrine in Advance Rulings : Clause 386 of the Inc...
    Jurisdictional Bar on Parallel Proceedings : Clause 385 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 245...
    Procedure for processing applications for advance rulings in the Indian tax regime : Clause 384 of t...
    Procedural Evolution of Advance Ruling Applications : Clause 383 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Se...
    Legal Insights on Vacancies and Defects in Advance Ruling Bodies : Clause 382 of Income Tax Bill, 20...
    Administrative Efficiency vs. Judicial Oversight : Clause 381 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Secti...
    Changing Landscape of Advance Rulings in Indian Tax Law : Clause 380 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs...
    Evolving ADR Mechanisms in Indian Taxation : Clause 379 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 245...
    Set-off and Withholding of Tax Refunds : Clause 438 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 245 of ...
    Change in the Interest on Tax Refunds under Indian Income Tax Law : Clause 437 of the Income Tax Bil...
    Limits on Challenging Completed Assessments in Refund Proceedings : Clause 436 of Income Tax Bill, 2...
    Automatic Refunds under Indian Income Tax Law : Clause 435 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section ...
    Procedural and Substantive Aspects of TDS Refunds : Clause 434 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section ...
    Limitation, Procedure, and Rights of Refund Claims in Indian Tax Law : Clause 433 of the Income Tax ...
    Refund Entitlement in Special Cases (Death, Incapacity, Insolvency, Liquidation, or Other Causes) : ...
    Statutory Safeguards for Taxpayer Refunds : Clause 431 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 vs. Section 237 of I...
❯❯
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
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Appellate scope reform consolidates appealable orders, enables faceless appeals and transfers while preserving rehearing safeguards.
    Clause 356 prescribes an exhaustive list of appealable orders before the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), defines "status" by cross reference, prohibits appeals where orders are passed by or with approval of authorities above Deputy Commissioner, and empowers the Board to transfer appeals between JCIT(A) and Commissioner (Appeals) with a mandated opportunity of rehearing. It formally enables a government notified faceless disposal scheme-permitting elimination of physical interface and modification of procedural provisions-and authorizes the Board to exclude specified cases or classes from the section's operation.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Right of appeal to High Court preserves judicial review over advance rulings with limited condonation and streamlined procedure.
    Clause 389 grants a statutory right of appeal to the High Court against rulings or orders of the Board for Advance Rulings and certain Assessing Officer actions, mandates filing in the prescribed form and manner within a limited period, allows judicial condonation for a short additional interval, omits prior executive scheme-making and modification powers, and relies on Rule 44FA to integrate appeal procedure with jurisdictional High Court practice.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Procedural autonomy for advance rulings enables the Board to set its own procedures, heightening calls for transparency and safeguards.
    Clause 388 vests the Board for Advance Rulings with broad power to regulate its own procedure, subject to the relevant Chapter, enabling the Board to prescribe filing rules, hearing modes, timelines, evidence protocols, order formats and confidentiality mechanisms, while the institutional shift from a quasi judicial Authority to an administrative Board raises concerns about explicit natural justice safeguards, transparency, consistency and the scope of judicial review.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Advance Rulings powers modernisation clarifies BAR's quasi judicial authority and civil court powers under reformed procedural codes.
    Clause 387 modernises the powers and status of the Board for Advance Rulings by vesting it with civil court powers to summon witnesses, compel document production, receive affidavit evidence and exercise other adjudicatory functions, and by deeming its proceedings to be judicial proceedings that attract penal consequences for perjury and related offences, while limiting the civil court status to specified purposes and aligning cross references with reformed procedural and penal codes.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Void ab initio of advance rulings: fraud or misrepresentation may nullify rulings and restore ordinary tax provisions.
    Clause 386 empowers the Board for Advance Rulings to declare an advance ruling void ab initio if found to have been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation, on representation by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner or otherwise; the Act is to apply as if no ruling had been made (excluding the period the ruling was in force), and a copy of the order must be sent to the applicant and the tax authority.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdictional bar on parallel proceedings preserves advance rulings' exclusivity for resident applicants and prevents conflicting adjudication.
    Clause 385 imposes a jurisdictional bar barring income tax authorities and the Appellate Tribunal from deciding any issue for which a resident has filed an advance ruling application; the prohibition attaches on filing and pertains only to the specific issue raised, thereby preserving the exclusivity and predictability of the advance ruling mechanism while raising interpretive questions about the definition of "issue" and the treatment of pending proceedings.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Advance ruling procedure secures binding tax guidance with hearing rights, grounds for rejection, and mandatory communication.
    Clause 384 requires the Board for Advance Rulings to forward applications to the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, call for records, and after examination either allow or reject applications. Rejection must follow an opportunity to be heard and a reasoned order, and orders must be communicated to the applicant and tax authorities. Mandatory exclusions include pending proceedings, fair market value determinations, and transactions prima facie designed for tax avoidance; if allowed, the Board must examine further material, hear the applicant or authorised representative, and pronounce a written ruling within the prescribed time frame.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Advance ruling procedure: streamlined application process with prescribed form, quadruplicate filing, fee and a thirty day withdrawal window.
    Clause 383 establishes a streamlined procedure for advance rulings: applications must state the specific question and be filed in the prescribed form and manner in quadruplicate, accompanied by a prescribed fee, and may be withdrawn within thirty days. The clause retains core procedural features of the prior regime but omits transitional and legacy transfer or opt-out provisions, leaving form, fee, and certain consequences of withdrawal to subordinate rules.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Vacancies and defects immunity preserves validity of advance rulings to prevent collateral challenges and ensure procedural continuity.
    Clause 382 stipulates that no proceeding before, or pronouncement of an advance ruling by, the Board for Advance Rulings shall be questioned or invalidated merely because of any vacancy or defect in the Board's constitution. It applies to both procedural actions and final rulings, reflects the de facto validity principle, and is intended to secure continuity, legal certainty, and protection against collateral procedural challenges, while not extending to defects that negate jurisdiction or involve fraud or bias.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Board for Advance Rulings centralizes administrative advance rulings, prioritizing efficiency but raising independence and legal robustness concerns.
    Clause 381 mandates constitution of one or more Board for Advance Rulings by notification, each comprising two members who are serving tax officers of not below Chief Commissioner rank, nominated by the Board; the provision preserves an administrative, officer-led model akin to the existing framework and emphasizes mandatory establishment, flexibility in number and phased operationalization, while leaving nomination criteria, judicial representation, publication, and appellate design unspecified.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Advance ruling mechanism provides pre transactional tax certainty and access controls for cross border and GAAR related issues.
    Clause 380 defines advance ruling across five categories: rulings for non resident applicants; rulings on transactions between residents and non residents; rulings for specified resident applicants; rulings on computation of total income pending before tax authorities or the Appellate Tribunal; and rulings on whether proposed arrangements are impermissible avoidance arrangements; it links applications to the Bill's procedural section and replaces the Authority with a Board for Advance Rulings, while preserving notification based resident eligibility.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Dispute Resolution Committee provides an opt-in ADR path reducing penalties and granting prosecution immunity for minor tax disputes.
    Clause 379 creates an opt in Dispute Resolution Committee to resolve minor tax disputes by allowing modification of assessment variations, reduction or waiver of penalties, and grant of immunity from prosecution, with Assessing Officers required to implement DRC directions within a prescribed short timeframe; eligibility is confined by a monetary ceiling on variations, exclusions for search/survey or international information cases, and an income threshold as reported in returns, while procedural details and disqualifications are to be prescribed in subordinate rules.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Set-off of tax refunds: authority to adjust refunds against outstanding dues with written intimation and time limited withholding.
    Clause 438 authorises specified tax officers to set off any refund due against sums remaining payable by the taxpayer, subject to mandatory written intimation. If assessment or reassessment proceedings are pending, the Assessing Officer may withhold the refund for a limited, time bound period, but only after recording reasons in writing and obtaining prior approval from the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. The clause streamlines language from Section 245, narrows discretionary grounds for withholding by focusing on pendency of proceedings, and retains procedural safeguards without specifying priority among kinds of dues.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Interest on tax refunds: prescribed entitlement and computation rules ensure compensation for delayed refunds and administrative resolution.
    Clause 437 provides a statutory entitlement to interest on delayed tax refunds, specifying commencement dates for interest based on refund source (advance tax, TCS, tax treated as paid, self-assessment, rectification or excess payment), a materiality threshold exempting trivial refunds, extension of entitlement to deductors, exclusion of periods of delay attributable to the taxpayer or deductor, additional interest for appellate or revision order-related refunds, adjustment and recovery mechanisms for varied refund amounts, and administrative resolution of disputes on excluded periods by a senior tax authority.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Finality of assessments: refund claims limited to refunds for wrongly paid or excess tax, not re litigation of settled assessments.
    Clause 436 prevents an assessee, in refund claims, from questioning or seeking review of any assessment or matter that has become final and conclusive; relief in such claims is limited to refund of tax wrongly paid or paid in excess and the provision must be read with appeal, rectification and revision mechanisms to avoid undermining corrective powers elsewhere in the statute.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Automatic refunds on appellate or statutory orders require proactive AO disbursement, subject to reassessment and annulment limits.
    Automatic refunds are mandated when appellate or other statutory orders reduce or annul tax liability, requiring the Assessing Officer to refund excess amounts without a claim, except where the Act provides otherwise. Refunds become due only after a fresh assessment when an order directs reassessment, and where an assessment is annulled the refund is limited to the excess tax paid over tax chargeable on the returned total income. The provision preserves AO obligations, exceptions for set off or stay, and separates principal refund rules from interest entitlement.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    TDS refund mechanism for deductors clarifies eligibility, prescribed application procedure, and time bound AO orders.
    Clause 434 creates a statutory TDS refund mechanism allowing a deductor who, under a written agreement, bore withholding tax and later claims no deduction was legally required to apply for refund in the prescribed form; the Assessing Officer must inquire as necessary, provide the applicant an opportunity to be heard, and pass a written order allowing or rejecting the claim within the specified time frame.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Return-based refund claims must be made through the income tax return, tying refund limitation to return filing timelines.
    Clause 433 requires that every refund claim be made by furnishing the return of income under section 263, making return filing the exclusive procedural vehicle for refund claims and implicitly tying limitation to the return filing timelines without providing express condonation or separate application mechanisms.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Refund entitlement: clubbed-income payee and authorised representatives may claim tax refunds when taxpayer cannot act.
    The clause entitles the person in whose total income clubbed income is included to claim the refund attributable to that income, and authorises a legal representative, trustee, guardian or receiver to claim or receive refunds on behalf of a taxpayer who cannot do so because of death, incapacity, insolvency, liquidation or similar cause; procedural formalities and limitation issues are left to subordinate rules and practice.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Tax refund entitlement preserved: statutory right maintained under new bill with procedural verification by Assessing Officer.
    Clause 431 preserves a statutory right to a refund where a person satisfies the Assessing Officer that tax paid, paid on or treated as paid on their behalf for a tax year exceeds the amount properly chargeable; it covers direct payments and deemed payments (TDS/TCS, advance tax), places an initial procedural burden on the taxpayer, and mirrors Section 237 of the 1961 Act except for the shift from assessment year to tax year, with attendant implications for temporal reference, procedural integration, and ancillary issues such as interest, set offs and standards of verification.

    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

      computation of tonnage income where ships are jointly operated or where multiple companies are involved in the operation of a qualifying ship : Clause 227(7)-(8) of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 115VH of Income-tax Act, 1961

      10 May, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Clause 227 Computation of tonnage income.

      Income Tax Bill, 2025

      Introduction

      The taxation of shipping companies has long been a specialized area within income tax legislation, given the unique nature of the shipping industry and the international context in which it operates. The tonnage tax regime, as an alternative to conventional income computation, aims to provide a predictable and simplified method for determining the taxable income of shipping companies based on the tonnage of ships rather than actual profits. This approach is intended to enhance competitiveness, reduce administrative burden, and align Indian law with international practices.

      Clause 227 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, is the proposed legislative provision addressing the computation of tonnage income for shipping companies opting for this regime. Within this clause, sub-sections (7) and (8) specifically address the computation of tonnage income in cases where ships are jointly operated or where multiple companies are involved in the operation of a qualifying ship. These provisions are directly analogous to Section 115VH of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which currently governs such scenarios.

      This commentary provides a detailed examination of Clause 227(7) and (8), exploring their objectives, mechanisms, and implications, followed by a comparative analysis with Section 115VH. The analysis aims to elucidate the legal continuity, innovations, and potential issues arising from the proposed legislative changes.

      Objective and Purpose

      The primary objective of Clause 227(7)-(8) is to establish a clear and equitable methodology for the allocation and computation of tonnage income when qualifying ships are operated by more than one company. The rationale behind these provisions is rooted in the operational realities of the shipping industry, where joint ventures, pooling arrangements, and chartering agreements are commonplace. Without such specific provisions, the computation of taxable income could become contentious or lead to double taxation or under-taxation.

      Section 115VH of the Income-tax Act, 1961, serves the same purpose within the existing legal framework. The inclusion of similar provisions in the new Bill underscores the legislature's intent to maintain continuity in this area, ensuring that the transition to the new regime does not disrupt established practices or create uncertainty for stakeholders.

      Detailed Analysis of Clause 227(7)-(8) of the Income Tax Bill, 2025

      Interpretation and Legal Principles

      1. Joint Operation and Proportionate Allocation - Clause 227(7)

      • Clause 227(7) addresses scenarios where two or more companies jointly operate a qualifying ship, either through joint ownership or by agreement for its use, and where their respective shares are "definite and ascertainable." In such cases, the provision mandates that each company's tonnage income be computed in proportion to its share in the joint interest or agreement.
      • This approach is consistent with the general legal principle of taxation based on beneficial ownership and economic interest. By requiring proportional allocation, the law ensures that each company is taxed only on the income attributable to its actual stake in the ship's operation, thereby preventing both over- and under-taxation.
      • The requirement that shares be "definite and ascertainable" is significant, as it precludes arbitrary or ambiguous allocations. This aligns with broader principles in tax law that seek to avoid uncertainty and potential abuse in the allocation of income among related or unrelated parties.

      2. Independent Computation Where Shares Are Not Definite - Clause 227(8)

      • Clause 227(8) operates as a residual provision. It applies where two or more companies are operators of a qualifying ship, but the scenario does not fall within the scope of sub-section (7)-typically, where the respective shares are not definite and ascertainable.
      • In such cases, the provision requires that the tonnage income of each company be computed "as if each had been the only operator." This fiction ensures that each operator is treated independently for the purposes of tonnage income computation, thereby eliminating the need for complex apportionment in cases where the actual shares cannot be reliably determined.
      • This approach serves an anti-avoidance function, preventing companies from structuring arrangements in a manner that could obscure their true economic interest or lead to tax arbitrage. It also aligns with the administrative need for certainty and simplicity in the application of the tonnage tax regime.

      Ambiguities and Potential Issues

      • Definiteness of Shares: The provision hinges on the concept of "definite and ascertainable" shares. While this is a standard phrase in tax legislation, its application may raise interpretive questions, particularly in complex pooling or consortium arrangements where shares may fluctuate or be subject to adjustment.
      • Overlap Between Sub-sections (7) and (8): The drafting of Clause 227(8) as "subject to" sub-section (7) clarifies the hierarchy but may still leave room for disputes over whether a particular arrangement falls under (7) or (8), especially where documentation is incomplete or ambiguous.
      • Interaction with International Arrangements: Given the cross-border nature of shipping, there may be cases where the allocation of tonnage income under Indian law interacts with foreign tax laws, raising issues of double taxation or non-taxation.

      Practical Implications

      1. Impact on Shipping Companies

      For shipping companies, these provisions provide clarity and predictability in the computation of tonnage income where joint operations are involved. Companies entering into joint ventures or chartering arrangements can structure their agreements with the knowledge that their tax liability will be proportionate to their economic interest, provided that such interest is clearly defined and documented.

      In cases where shares are not definite or cannot be ascertained, companies are incentivized to clarify their arrangements to avoid the default rule under Clause 227(8), which may result in less favorable tax treatment or increased administrative burden.

      2. Compliance and Documentation

      The emphasis on "definite and ascertainable" shares underscores the importance of robust documentation. Companies must ensure that their agreements clearly specify the basis for the allocation of income and are supported by contemporaneous records. Failure to do so may expose them to the risk of the tax authorities applying the independent operator rule under Clause 227(8).

      3. Tax Administration

      From the perspective of tax authorities, these provisions facilitate the administration of the tonnage tax regime by providing clear rules for the allocation of income. However, they also require vigilance in scrutinizing the terms of joint operating agreements to ensure that the declared shares reflect the actual economic substance of the arrangements.

      4. Cross-Border Considerations

      Given the international nature of shipping, these provisions may interact with the tax laws of other jurisdictions. Companies must be mindful of potential mismatches in the allocation of income, which could give rise to double taxation or disputes over taxing rights.

      Comparative Analysis with Section 115VH of the Income-tax Act, 1961

      Structural and Substantive Parity

      A close reading of Clause 227(7)-(8) and Section 115VH reveals that the provisions are virtually identical in both structure and substance. Both set out a two-step approach:

      1. Where shares are definite and ascertainable, allocate income proportionately (sub-section (7) / sub-section (1)).
      2. Where not, compute income for each company as if it were the sole operator (sub-section (8) / sub-section (2)).

      The use of nearly identical language ensures continuity and minimizes disruption for stakeholders transitioning from the 1961 Act to the proposed 2025 regime.

      Legislative Intent and Continuity

      The replication of Section 115VH in Clause 227(7)-(8) reflects a deliberate legislative choice to retain the established approach to joint operations under the tonnage tax regime. This is consistent with the broader objective of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, which seeks to modernize and consolidate tax law without fundamentally altering the substantive rules governing key sectors.

      Differences and Potential Innovations

      While the core provisions are the same, the context within which Clause 227(7)-(8) operates is somewhat broader, as the 2025 Bill also updates related definitions, the methodology for computation, and the integration with other regulatory frameworks (e.g., the Inland Vessels Act, 2021, and updated rules for certificates of tonnage). This may have indirect implications for the application of these sub-sections, particularly in cases involving new categories of vessels or updated certification procedures.

      Additionally, the 2025 Bill's overall structure and the cross-referencing of definitions and procedures may enhance clarity and ease of administration, even if the substantive rules remain unchanged.

      Comparative Summary Table

      ProvisionClause 227(7)-(8) of the Income Tax Bill, 2025Section 115VH of the Income-tax Act, 1961Comments
      Proportionate allocation where shares are  definite and ascertainableExplicitly provided in sub-section (7)Explicitly provided in sub-section (1)No substantive difference
      Independent computation where shares are not definiteExplicitly provided in sub-section (8)Explicitly provided in sub-section (2)No substantive difference
      Interaction with broader tonnage tax regimeIntegrated with updated definitions and procedures (e.g., certificates, deemed tonnage, inland vessels)Operates within the older frameworkPotential for improved clarity and administration under the 2025 Bill

      Potential Areas for Reform or Clarification

      • Clarification of "Definite and Ascertainable": Given the practical importance of this phrase, legislative or administrative guidance on its meaning could reduce disputes and enhance certainty.
      • Documentation Requirements: Explicit requirements regarding the documentation needed to substantiate shares in joint operations could improve compliance and reduce litigation.
      • Interaction with International Tax Treaties: Guidance on the application of these provisions in cross-border contexts could help address potential double taxation issues.

      Conclusion

      Clause 227(7)-(8) of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, represents a continuation of the established approach to the computation of tonnage income in cases of joint operation of qualifying ships, as set out in Section 115VH of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The provisions are designed to ensure equitable allocation of income based on economic interest, provide administrative simplicity, and prevent tax avoidance. While the substantive rules remain unchanged, the updated context and integration with related provisions in the 2025 Bill may enhance clarity and ease of administration. Further guidance on key concepts and documentation requirements could further strengthen the regime and reduce the scope for disputes.


      Full Text:

      Clause 227 Computation of tonnage income.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax