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 LawsCustoms
    Decoding the Interplay of Customs Duty, Interest, and Confiscation Proceedings
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Assessment u/s 153C: Reckoning the Limitation Period
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting 'Initiation' of Penalty Action u/s 275(1)(c): Period of Limitation
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment: Decoding the Exemptions for International Tax Charges
    Interpreting Rule 86A: Safeguarding Taxpayers' Rights in ITC Blocking
    Writ Jurisdiction Not a Shortcut to Bypass Tax Adjudication Process, Rules Court: Judicial Disciplin...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Decoding the Interplay of Sections 153A and 153C in Search Assessments: Limitation and Reassessment ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Customs Valuation and Classification: Upholding Due Process and Objective Assessment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Income Tax Case Transfers: Place of Business vs. Registered Office: Determining the Appropriate Juri...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Writ Petitions and Section 153C Proceedings: Examining the High Court Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting Time Limits for 80G Registration for Charitable Institutions: Avoiding Absurdity in the...
    Unraveling the Web: Forgery, Fake GST Firms, and the Pursuit of Economic Justice
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interplay between the provisions of Section 153C and Section 147: Limits on Automatic Reassessment i...
    Decoding the GST Forgery Case: Balancing Personal Liberty and Safeguarding Public Interest for Grant...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Equity and Justice in Tax Matters: Condonation of Bona Fide Delays
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Embracing Equity in Tax Laws: Recognizing Genuine Difficulties in Condonation of Delays in filing of...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Recovery Proceedings Against Legal Heirs of Sole Proprietors: Invalidity of Demand Notices Issued Ag...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Jurisdiction of DRI Officers: Supreme Court Upholds Section 97 of Finance Act 2022 validating Custom...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Dissecting the Legality of IGST on Ocean Freight for FOB Imports: Refund of IGST
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Real Income Taxation: Avoiding Double Disallowance of Wages and Salaries Payable
❯❯
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 LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Customs duty liability on redemption: assessment under Section 28 triggers interest under Section 28AB for delayed payment.
    The court concluded that duty liability arises when an owner redeems confiscated goods under Section 125(2), while the procedural assessment and determination of that duty can be carried out under Section 28, and that the interest provision of Section 28AB applies where Section 28 is invoked for such duties; the Jagdish Cancer ratio does not preclude applying Section 28 in confiscation-redemption assessments.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation under Section 153C: six-year period runs from receipt of seized documents, requiring assessment under Section 153C.
    Where seized assets, documents and digital data recovered from a third party are found to relate to another person, the date on which the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction receives those seized materials is the deemed date of search for reckoning the six-year limitation period; that deemed date determines the relevant assessment year and which prior six assessment years fall under the special procedure for initiating assessments under Section 153C.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Initiation of penalty proceedings: limitation runs from the Assessing Officer's reference, barring belated penalty orders.
    Initiation of penalty proceedings occurs when the Assessing Officer makes a reference to the competent authority; the subsequent show cause notice is a procedural opportunity and does not restart the limitation period, so the statutory limitation for completing penalty proceedings runs from the date of the Assessing Officer's reference and a penalty order passed after that period is time barred.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment procedure must govern issuance of Section 148 notices in international tax matters, irrespective of residency.
    The court held that the plain language of the faceless scheme, Section 144B(2) and the CBDT order requires that issuance of Section 148 notices in matters involving international tax charges comply with the mandatory faceless assessment procedure, irrespective of the taxpayer's residency status, and that notices issued without adherence to that procedure are inconsistent with the statutory scheme.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    ITC blocking under Rule 86A: restricts orders to credit presently available in the electronic credit ledger, limiting retrospective blockage.
    Rule 86A(1) functions as a temporary protective mechanism that may be invoked only where input tax credit is currently available in the taxpayer's electronic credit ledger and the officer has reasons to believe that such present credit has been fraudulently availed or is ineligible; the expression "amount equivalent to such credit" must be read together with the condition of availability in the ECL and does not authorise retrospective blocking of ITC already utilised or refunded.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Exhaustion of statutory remedies prevents direct writ challenges to tax demands absent exceptional circumstances or factual disputes.
    The court held that exhaustion of statutory remedies bars writ relief where efficacious alternate remedies exist and where resolution requires factual or classification inquiries; finding no exceptional circumstances to bypass the statutory process, the court dismissed the writ petitions but granted liberty to the petitioners to pursue statutory remedies, including filing responses to show cause notices or appeals against adjudication orders within the period allowed, subject to compliance with prescribed conditions such as pre-deposit obligations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reassessment limitation: commencement depends on AO's recorded satisfaction, not the search date, for non-searched entities.
    Reassessment of a non-searched entity under Section 153C must be measured from the date the Assessing Officer records satisfaction about the seized material's relevance to that entity, not from the date of the search when the same AO is involved; the proviso to Section 153A(1) prevents the extended limitation period introduced by the 2017 amendment from applying to searches before the statutory cutoff, and physical handover of materials is a machinery provision rather than the substantive commencement trigger.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Transaction value protection: declared import price accepted; principal-use classification of motor controllers affirmed after procedural defects in reassessment were found
    The tribunal upheld the declared transaction value, finding that the authority enhanced assessable value without following statutory procedures and without proving non-comparability; NIDB assessed-value data alone was insufficient. On classification, the motor controllers were held to be parts principally used with electric motors and correctly classed under CTH 8503, with explanatory notes and the principal-use test displacing revenue's attempt to treat them as vehicle accessories.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Place of business controls assessment jurisdiction; transfer permitted where incriminating materials were seized in that jurisdiction.
    When incriminating materials seized in a particular circle are directly connected to an assessee's business activities and essential to assessment, the assessing authority may transfer proceedings to the circle where those materials were seized. The decision emphasizes that place of business-reflecting where operative evidence and activities occurred-can control assessment jurisdiction, and that transfer facilitates a coordinated investigation while procedural safeguards like show cause notices and opportunities to reply remain relevant.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Writ jurisdiction preserved where exceptions to alternative remedies exist; defective Section 153C compliance undermines post-search assessments.
    The court analysed when High Court writ jurisdiction may be exercised despite alternative remedies, reiterating exceptions for violations of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, or fundamental rights. It examined Section 153C procedural requirements, particularly the necessity of a valid satisfaction note by the Assessing Officer of the searched person, time limits and jurisdictional competence, and the limited evidentiary value of loose sheets and retracted statements absent corroboration.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Time limits for 80G registration: purposive interpretation prevents existing charities being barred and preserves merit-based verification.
    The Tribunal construed the amended registration scheme to hold that the six month filing period tied to commencement of activities applies to newly formed institutions that have not begun activities, not to existing charities that obtained provisional approval; it required the assessing authority to treat applications filed within six months before provisional approval expiry as within time and to verify eligibility on merits, providing opportunity to supply documents.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Admissibility of custodial disclosures: discovery linked statements can be admitted, shaping jurisdiction and bail in GST fraud cases.
    The summary addresses three operative legal points: admissibility of custodial disclosures limited to parts directly leading to discovery of material items; jurisdictional inquiry in multi state economic offences founded on connections between the complainant, place of lodging the FIR and links to accused and firms; and stringent bail evaluation in large scale economic crimes considering gravity, evidence, punishment, risk of tampering, accused's influence and public interest, applied to a scheme of forged GST firms and bogus invoices.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Non obstante clause in third party search provision applies only after the AO assumes jurisdiction by issuing a notice.
    The Assessing Officer of the other person must record satisfaction that incriminating material relates to that person's total income for specific assessment years before issuing a third party notice; the non obstante clause in the third party provision applies only after the Assessing Officer assumes jurisdiction by issuing such a notice and does not oust regular reassessment provisions where jurisdiction under the third party scheme is not assumed.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Bail in economic offences: stricter scrutiny where circumstantial financial links to proceeds of crime risk investigation and public interest.
    The court examined bail appropriateness where applicants allegedly knowingly received and concealed proceeds from a large-scale GST fraud involving fake registrations and bogus invoices. It treated unexplained transactions as strong circumstantial evidence of complicity and applied a heightened bail regime for serious economic offences, weighing gravity of offence, public fund loss, evidence strength and risk of tampering. Gender or familial ties were held insufficient to justify leniency when individuals are shown to have benefited from proceeds of crime.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay: bona fide short technical glitches in filing income tax returns warrant equitable condonation by authorities.
    The High Court held that a one day, bona fide delay in filing an income tax return due to a technical portal glitch could not be rejected merely because the return had been processed with a demand; such reasoning was misconceived. Applying earlier authorities that endorse an empathetic and non rigid approach, the court emphasised that short delays caused by genuine human or technical problems should be condoned in exercise of administrative discretion, reinforcing the primacy of equity and justice in condonation applications for returns.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay: personal illness of a tax professional can justify relief in filing income tax returns.
    The summary establishes that under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, delay in filing returns caused by personal difficulties of a chartered accountant (such as illness of a family member) can be a genuine reason for discretionary condonation; authorities should assess such claims sensitively, require reasoned disbelief if rejecting medical evidence, and interpret discretionary tax powers in light of equity, substantial justice and harmonious construction.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Invalidity of notices to deceased persons prevents recovery from legal heirs absent specific statutory machinery enabling continuation.
    Issuance of a demand or show cause notice to a deceased sole proprietor is a jurisdictional defect because notice to the correct person is a condition precedent under the Customs Drawback Rules; absent a statutory machinery provision or voluntary submission by legal representatives, recovery of erroneously availed drawback and penalties cannot be pursued against legal heirs.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdiction of revenue intelligence officers affirmed: legislative validation sustains past customs show cause notices as constitutionally permissible.
    The Court concluded the defect identified in Canon India is unfounded when Notification No. 44/2011 and amended Section 17 are read together, distinguishing assessment functions under Section 17 from recovery under Section 28, and held that Section 97 of the Finance Act, 2022 validly and purposively validates past show cause notices issued by DRI and similarly situated officers, with retrospective application limited to the object of validation and passing Article 14 tests of reasonable classification and proportionality.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    IGST on ocean freight invalid where IGST already paid on import value, preventing double taxation under valuation rules.
    The court held that where IGST has been paid on the value of imported goods inclusive of cost, freight and insurance under Section 5(1) of the IGST Act read with the Customs Act, the CIF/FOB distinction is immaterial and a notification provision seeking separate IGST on ocean freight for FOB imports cannot be sustained, reinforcing fiscal neutrality and preventing double taxation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Timing difference in wage provisions prevents double disallowance; actual payment deductible after reversal.
    Where provisions for wages and salaries are reversed in the return and actual payments are later made and evidenced, those entries represent a timing difference rather than inherently bogus expenditure; treating the same item as disallowable in the earlier year and again disallowing the later payment would result in double disallowance contrary to the taxation of real income.

    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

      Legal and Practical Implications of Excluding Tonnage Tax Profits from Book Profits in Indian Shipping Taxation : Clause 228(16) of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 115VO of the Income-tax Act, 1961

      14 May, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Clause 228 Relevant shipping income and exclusion from book profit.

      Income Tax Bill, 2025

      Introduction

      The Indian taxation regime for shipping companies has long recognized the unique nature of the shipping business, particularly its international character and the complexities involved in the computation of taxable income. To address these, a special regime known as the tonnage tax system was introduced, allowing shipping companies to compute their taxable income based on the net tonnage of their ships rather than on the basis of regular profits and gains. This system is designed to provide certainty, simplicity, and global competitiveness to Indian shipping companies.

      Two key statutory provisions govern the treatment of shipping income under the tonnage tax regime: Section 115VO of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and its proposed successor, Clause 228(16) of the Income Tax Bill, 2025. Both provisions deal with the exclusion of book profits or losses derived from the activities of a tonnage tax company from the computation of book profits for the purposes of Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT), previously u/s 115JB and, prospectively, u/s 206 of the new Bill.

      This commentary provides an in-depth analysis of Clause 228(16) of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, its objectives, legal context, practical implications, and a detailed comparative analysis with Section 115VO of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

      Objective and Purpose

      The legislative intent behind both Section 115VO and Clause 228(16) is to ensure that the special tonnage tax regime for shipping companies is not undermined by the general provisions relating to the computation of book profits for MAT purposes. The tonnage tax regime aims to provide a globally competitive and administratively simple method for taxing shipping companies, aligning with international best practices. Subjecting tonnage tax companies to MAT on book profits, which may not correspond to their tonnage income, would defeat the purpose of the regime.

      The exclusion of book profits or losses from tonnage tax activities from the computation of MAT ensures that shipping companies opting for the tonnage tax regime are taxed only on the tonnage income, as envisaged by the special provisions, and are not subjected to additional tax burdens under the MAT framework.

      Detailed Analysis of Clause 228(16) of the Income Tax Bill, 2025

      Text of Clause 228(16)

      The book profit or loss derived from the activities of a tonnage tax company, referred to in sub-section (1), shall be excluded from the book profit of the company for the purposes of section 206.

      Breakdown of Key Elements

      1. Scope of Exclusion: The exclusion applies to book profit or loss derived from the activities of a tonnage tax company, as defined in sub-section (1) of Clause 228. These activities include both core and incidental shipping activities, as elaborated in sub-sections (3) and (7).
      2. Reference to Section 206: The exclusion operates specifically for the purposes of section 206 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, which is the successor provision to section 115JB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (i.e., the MAT provision). This ensures that tonnage tax companies are not subjected to MAT on profits from their core and incidental shipping activities.
      3. Linkage with Other Sub-sections: By referring to sub-section (1), Clause 228(16) ensures that the exclusion covers all relevant shipping income, as defined and circumscribed by the preceding sub-sections, including the limitations and qualifications imposed therein (for example, the cap on incidental income in sub-section (2), treatment of non-qualifying ships in sub-section (8), and transfer pricing adjustments in sub-sections (9)-(12)).

      Interpretative Issues and Ambiguities

      • Definition of "Book Profit": The term "book profit" is not defined within Clause 228 itself but is referenced in section 206. The interpretation of book profit for MAT purposes is crucial, as it determines the quantum of income to be excluded.
      • Scope of Exclusion: The exclusion is limited to profits or losses "derived from the activities" referred to in sub-section (1). This raises questions about the treatment of income or losses from activities that are not strictly within the definition of core or incidental activities, or that exceed the prescribed thresholds (as in sub-section (2)).
      • Interaction with Other Provisions: Clause 228 contains several provisions dealing with allocation of costs, depreciation, and transfer pricing adjustments. The correct computation of the amount to be excluded from book profits u/s 206 requires careful application of these provisions.
      • Procedural Aspects: The mechanism for computing and reporting the exclusion, and the documentation required to substantiate the quantum of excluded profits or losses, are not specified and may be subject to further rules or guidance.

      Practical Implications

      For Shipping Companies

      • Certainty and Simplicity: The exclusion ensures that shipping companies opting for the tonnage tax regime can compute their tax liability with certainty, without the risk of an additional MAT burden on book profits from their shipping activities.
      • Global Competitiveness: By aligning with international tonnage tax regimes and avoiding double taxation (i.e., under both the tonnage tax and MAT), Indian shipping companies are placed on a competitive footing with their global peers.
      • Compliance Requirements: Shipping companies must maintain robust documentation to demonstrate the quantum of profits or losses derived from qualifying activities, and ensure proper allocation of common costs, depreciation, and transfer pricing adjustments as per Clause 228.

      For Tax Authorities

      • Audit and Verification: The tax authorities must ensure that the exclusion is correctly claimed and that only eligible profits or losses are excluded. This may involve scrutiny of the classification of activities, allocation of costs, and application of transfer pricing adjustments.
      • Potential for Disputes: Ambiguities in the definition of qualifying activities, allocation of costs, and determination of market value for intra-group transfers may give rise to disputes and litigation.

      For Policymakers

      • Alignment with Policy Objectives: The provision supports the policy objective of promoting the Indian shipping industry and attracting tonnage to the Indian registry.
      • Revenue Impact: The exclusion reduces the potential tax base under MAT, but this is a deliberate trade-off to achieve broader economic objectives.

      Comparative Analysis: Clause 228(16) vs. Section 115VO

      Text of Section 115VO

      The book profit or loss derived from the activities of a tonnage tax company, referred to in sub-section (1) of section 115V-I, shall be excluded from the book profit of the company for the purposes of section 115JB.

      Key Similarities

      • Substantive Effect: Both provisions achieve the same substantive result: the exclusion of book profits or losses from tonnage tax activities from the computation of book profits for MAT purposes.
      • Reference to Definitional Sub-section: Both provisions refer to a definitional sub-section (sub-section (1) of the relevant section) to determine the scope of activities covered by the exclusion.
      • Purpose: Both are designed to prevent the tonnage tax regime from being undermined by the MAT provisions, thus maintaining the integrity of the special regime for shipping companies.

      Key Differences

      • Reference to MAT Section: Section 115VO refers to section 115JB (the MAT provision under the 1961 Act), whereas Clause 228(16) refers to section 206 (the corresponding MAT provision under the 2025 Bill). This is a structural change reflecting the reorganization and renumbering of provisions in the new Bill.
      • Scope of Activities: The scope of "activities" from which book profits or losses are to be excluded is determined by reference to sub-section (1) of section 115V-I (in the 1961 Act) or sub-section (1) of Clause 228 (in the 2025 Bill). While the basic approach is the same, the detailed definitions and scope of core and incidental activities, as well as limitations and adjustments, are more elaborately set out in Clause 228 than in the earlier provisions.
      • Integration with Other Provisions: Clause 228 is more detailed and comprehensive in defining core and incidental activities, setting limits on incidental income, dealing with non-qualifying ships, and specifying rules for allocation of costs and transfer pricing adjustments. Section 115VO, by contrast, is a brief exclusionary provision, relying on the definitions and computations set out in section 115V-I and related sections.
      • Legislative Drafting: Clause 228(16) is part of a broader and more integrated legislative framework in the 2025 Bill, reflecting lessons learned from the operation of the tonnage tax regime under the 1961 Act. This may provide greater clarity and reduce interpretive disputes.

      Comparison Table

      AspectSection 115VO of the income tax Act, 1961Clause 228(16) of the Income-tax Bill,  2025
      Reference to MATSection 115JBsection 206
      Scope of ActivitiesAs per section 115V-I(1)As per Clause 228(1), with detailed sub-sections
      Definition of Core/Incidental ActivitiesBasic definitions in section 115V-IDetailed definitions and limits in Clause 228(3)-(7)
      Adjustments for Transfers/AllocationHandled in related sections (115VJ, 115VK, etc.)Integrated within Clause 228 (sub-sections (9)-(15))
      Procedural ClarityRelies on existing proceduresPotential for new rules/guidance under the 2025 Bill

      Analysis of Legislative Evolution

      The move from Section 115VO to Clause 228(16) reflects a broader legislative evolution. The 2025 Bill seeks to consolidate, clarify, and modernize the income tax law, including the provisions applicable to shipping companies. By integrating the exclusion provision within a more comprehensive framework (Clause 228), the new Bill aims to provide greater clarity, reduce litigation, and ensure that the special regime for shipping companies is robust and future-proof.

      The detailed definitions and mechanisms in Clause 228 address several practical issues that have arisen under the 1961 Act, such as the treatment of incidental income, allocation of common costs, and intra-group transfers. By bringing these within a single, integrated provision, the 2025 Bill enhances administrative efficiency and taxpayer certainty.

      Practical Issues and Potential Challenges

      1. Classification of Activities

      Proper classification of income as arising from core or incidental activities is crucial. Disputes may arise regarding whether certain activities (e.g., logistics, agency services, or ancillary services) qualify as core or incidental, and whether income from such activities falls within the exclusion.

      2. Allocation of Costs and Depreciation

      Where a tonnage tax company has both qualifying and non-qualifying activities, the allocation of common costs and depreciation may be contentious. The Assessing Officer is given discretion to determine reasonable allocations, which may lead to differing interpretations and potential litigation.

      3. Transfer Pricing Adjustments

      Clause 228 includes provisions for adjusting the computation of relevant shipping income in cases of intra-group transfers or arrangements that result in more than ordinary profits. The application of these provisions requires careful documentation and may be subject to challenge by tax authorities.

      4. Losses from Shipping Activities

      Clause 228(13) provides that losses from relevant shipping income are to be ignored for the purposes of computing tonnage income. This reinforces the principle that the tonnage tax regime is a presumptive regime, and losses from shipping activities do not reduce the tonnage income or affect the exclusion from book profits.

      5. Compliance and Documentation

      To avail the exclusion under Clause 228(16), shipping companies must maintain detailed records of income, expenses, and allocations relating to qualifying activities. Failure to do so may result in denial of the exclusion or adjustments by tax authorities.

      Comparative Analysis with International Practice

      The tonnage tax regime, and the exclusion of book profits from MAT, is consistent with international practice. Many maritime jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom, Singapore, and the Netherlands, operate tonnage tax regimes that provide certainty and simplicity for shipping companies, and exclude such companies from alternative minimum tax regimes or similar provisions.

      The Indian regime, as reflected in Clause 228(16), is broadly in line with these international models, ensuring that Indian shipping companies are not disadvantaged in the global marketplace.

      Conclusion

      Clause 228(16) of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, represents a continuation and refinement of the policy underlying Section 115VO of the Income-tax Act, 1961. By excluding book profits or losses from qualifying shipping activities from the computation of book profits for MAT purposes, the provision preserves the integrity and effectiveness of the tonnage tax regime for shipping companies.

      The 2025 Bill enhances the legislative framework by providing more detailed definitions, mechanisms for allocation and adjustment, and integration with related provisions. This should reduce ambiguities and disputes, and provide greater certainty for both taxpayers and tax authorities.

      Going forward, it will be important for the government to provide clear rules and guidance on the computation and documentation requirements for claiming the exclusion, and for tax authorities and taxpayers to work collaboratively to ensure the smooth operation of the regime. Judicial clarification may be required in cases of dispute, particularly regarding the classification of activities and allocation of costs.


      Full Text:

      Clause 228 Relevant shipping income and exclusion from book profit.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax