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
    Judicial and Legislative Perspectives on Mens Rea in Income Tax Prosecutions :Clause 490 of the Inco...
    Presumptions in Tax Offence Prosecutions : Clause 489 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 278D ...
    Karta and Member Liability for Tax Offences : Clause 488 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 27...
    Directors' and Officers' Liability for Corporate Tax Offences : Clause 487 of the Income Tax Bill, 2...
    Balancing Deterrence and Fairness : Clause 486 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 278AA of Income-...
    Enhanced Penalties for Repeat Tax Offenders specified under Indian Tax Law: Clause 485 of the Income...
    Penal Provision for abetment in relation to the making and delivering of false returns - Clause 484 ...
    Penal Provision for Offences Relating to Falsification of Books in Indian Tax Law : Clause 483 of th...
    Prosecution for False Verification under Indian Tax Statutes : Clause 482 of the Income Tax Bill, 20...
    Penal Provisions for Failure to Produce Accounts and Documents : Clause 481 of the Income Tax Bill, ...
    Penal Provision for Failure to Furnish Return in Search Cases : Clause 480 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 ...
    Penal Provisions for Failure to File Income Tax Returns : Clause 479 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Se...
    Criminal Liability for Tax Evasion in India : Clause 478 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 27...
    Criminal Liability for TCS Defaults : Clause 477 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 vs. Section 276BB of Incom...
    Criminal Liability for TDS Defaults : Clause 476 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 276B of th...
    Evolution of Statutory Offences Against Tax Recovery in India : Clause 475 of the Income Tax Bill, 2...
    Penal Provisions for Non-Compliance during Tax Inspections : Clause 474 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025...
    Penal Consequences for Non-Compliance with Tax Authority Orders : Clause 473 of the Income Tax Bill,...
    Redefining the Bar of Limitation for Tax Penalties : Clause 472 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Sec...
    Natural Justice and Administrative Oversight in Tax Penalties : Clause 471 of the Income Tax Bill, 2...
❯❯
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
    Presumption of culpable mental state shifts evidentiary burden to accused to disprove intent beyond reasonable doubt.
    Clause 490 mandates that once the prosecution establishes the actus reus, the court shall presume the existence of a culpable mental state-broadly defined to include intention, motive, knowledge, belief and reason to believe-and permits the accused to rebut that presumption only by proving absence of such mental state beyond reasonable doubt.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Presumption regarding assets and documents found in searches shifts evidentiary burden, now including virtual digital assets.
    Clause 489 creates a rebuttable presumption that assets (including virtual digital assets) and books or documents found in a person's possession during an authorised search, or received via requisition, are presumed to belong to that person and that documents' contents are true when tendered in prosecution, applied "so far as may be" by reference to the Bill's presumption provision and extending to other persons identified by the Bill's connected-person provision.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Presumption of karta guilt shifts evidential burden, requiring demonstration of due diligence to avoid prosecution.
    Clause 488 places primary criminal responsibility on the karta of a Hindu Undivided Family by deeming the karta guilty of an offence by the HUF, subject to statutory defences of lack of knowledge or proof of having exercised all due diligence. It further deems any member guilty where the offence is proved to have been committed with that member's consent or connivance or is attributable to their neglect, creating independent member liability while preserving the karta's available exculpatory defences.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Corporate officer liability: deeming provision shifts initial burden to accused, with due diligence defence for tax offences.
    Where a company commits an income-tax offence, the company and every person who was in charge of, and responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business at the time are statutorily deemed guilty and liable to prosecution, subject to a defence that the individual lacked knowledge or exercised all due diligence to prevent the offence; separate liability arises where the offence occurred with the consent, connivance, or neglect of officers, companies are punishable by fine while individuals may face full penal consequences, and definitions explicitly include firms and associations of persons.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Reasonable cause defence limits criminal liability for certain tax compliance failures, protecting bona fide taxpayers from prosecution.
    Clause 486 creates a non obstante statutory reasonable cause defence prohibiting punishment for failures under the specified sections of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 when the accused proves reasonable cause. The provision places the burden of proof on the accused, preserves judicial fact specific assessment of reasonable cause, and operates to limit prosecutions for bona fide or uncontrollable lapses while directing enforcement attention to willful or egregious defaults.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Enhanced penalties for repeat tax offences impose mandatory imprisonment and fine upon subsequent convictions under specified tax provisions.
    A prior judicial conviction under any specified income tax offence triggers enhanced punishment: a person again convicted under any of those listed offences is subject to mandatory rigorous imprisonment and a mandatory fine, regardless of whether the subsequent conviction is for the same or a different listed offence; judicial discretion governs the precise sentence within the prescribed range, and the provision applies only after a prior conviction, not mere charge or prosecution.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Abetment of false returns: broadened criminal exposure for facilitators with mandatory imprisonment and fines for culpable conduct.
    Clause 484 criminalises abetment or inducement in making or delivering false tax-related statements, requiring that the abettor know the falsity or not believe the statement to be true. Punishment is tiered by the quantum sought to be evaded, with mandatory minimum imprisonment terms and fines, while procedural details and definitions such as "induce" are not specified, raising interpretive and evidentiary challenges. The clause mirrors prior law's structure but broad wording could implicate advisors and intermediaries absent judicial or legislative clarification.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Falsification of accounting records: criminal liability for wilful false entries intended to enable another person to evade tax.
    Clause 483 makes it an offence to wilfully make or cause false entries in books of account or other documents with intent to enable another person to evade tax, interest, or penalty; it requires proof of wilful conduct and intent but not proof that the beneficiary actually evaded liability, covers physical and electronic records relevant to tax proceedings, and prescribes rigorous imprisonment and a fine.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    False verification offences: criminal liability requires proved knowledge or recklessness, with graded imprisonment and mandatory fines.
    The provision criminalises making false statements in any statutory verification or delivering false accounts where the person knows or believes the statement to be false or does not believe it to be true. Prosecution must prove this mental element beyond reasonable doubt. A graded penalty applies according to the financial impact of the falsity: substantial evasion attracts a higher term of rigorous imprisonment while other cases attract a lower term, and a fine is mandatorily imposed in addition to imprisonment.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Willful failure to produce accounts triggers criminal liability including imprisonment and mandatory fine under the new tax provision.
    Clause 481 establishes a penal offence for willful failure to produce accounts and documents called for by a notice under section 268(1), or willful non compliance with a direction under section 268(5), punishable by rigorous imprisonment for up to one year and liability to fine, with criminal prosecution requiring proof of willfulness beyond reasonable doubt and adherence to procedural safeguards; the clause mirrors prior law while leaving the fine quantum unspecified and raising interpretative issues regarding the threshold for willfulness and potential overlap with other provisions.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Wilful failure to furnish return in search cases creates criminal liability, exposing taxpayers to imprisonment and fines.
    Clause 480 penalises a person who, following a search and pursuant to a notice under section 294(1)(a), wilfully fails to furnish a return of income within the prescribed time. The provision requires proof of deliberate non compliance, treats the offence as criminal, and prescribes imprisonment along with a court levied fine, while prosecutions remain subject to ordinary criminal procedure and due process safeguards.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Willful failure to file returns attracts graded criminal penalties including imprisonment and fine; an extended cure period limits prosecutions.
    Clause 479 criminalizes the willful failure to furnish returns of income, applying to statutory filing obligations and notice-triggered duties, and establishes a graded criminal penalty regime tied to the tax that would have been evaded. It preserves a mens rea requirement, mandates imprisonment and fine across tiers, and provides exemptions including a one-year cure period to avoid prosecution and a de minimis exception for non-corporate taxpayers, while raising interpretative issues on the definition of wilfulness and calculation of evaded tax.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Wilful tax evasion criminalisation: updated offence framework tightens penalties and preserves additional monetary sanctions for deliberate under-reporting.
    Clause 478 establishes an offence of wilful attempt to evade tax, penalty, or interest, including under-reporting, distinguishing evasion of liability from evasion of payment. It prescribes graded sentences with discretionary fines and makes offenders liable to any other penalties under the Act. The provision's inclusive definition-false entries, false statements, wilful omissions, and other enabling circumstances-broadens prosecutorial scope while retaining the requirement to prove mens rea and preserving procedural safeguards for prosecution.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Failure to remit tax collected at source: criminal liability retained with a filing linked safe harbour to encourage timely compliance.
    Clause 477 criminalizes failure to remit tax collected at source, adopting a strict liability approach that imposes custodial sentence and fine while offering a statutory safe harbour where TCS is deposited on or before the time prescribed for filing the TCS statement, thereby aligning penal consequences and procedural exemption with the existing framework.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Criminal liability for failure to remit TDS expands enforcement and broadens managerial responsibility, with strict penalties.
    Clause 476 criminalizes failure to deposit taxes deducted or collected at source under Chapter XIX-B, extending liability to those who "pay or ensure payment" and prescribing rigorous imprisonment and fine. A proviso bars prosecution if the tax is credited to the Central Government on or before the time prescribed for filing the relevant TDS statement, while cross references to notes and tables expand the catalogue of covered transactions and may complicate interpretation.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Fraudulent asset dissipation criminalized: intent-based offence bars transfers aimed at defeating prescribed tax recovery proceedings.
    Clause 475 penalizes the fraudulent removal, concealment, transfer, or delivery of any property or interest with the intent to prevent it from being taken in execution of a prescribed recovery certificate, requiring proof of deceitful intent and applying to tangible and intangible interests; it retains the punitive framework of rigorous imprisonment and fine while replacing an explicit Second Schedule reference with a flexible "as prescribed" linkage to recovery procedures.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Failure to provide inspection facilities criminalises obstruction during tax inspections, attracting imprisonment and fine under the new bill.
    Clause 474 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, makes it an offence to fail to afford an authorised officer the necessary facility to inspect books of account or other documents under section 247(1)(b)(ii), punishable with rigorous imprisonment for up to two years and a fine. The clause largely mirrors Section 275B of the 1961 Act, raises interpretive issues about the definition of "necessary facility" and mens rea, and creates potential overlaps with other penal provisions, while preserving continuity in enforcement policy.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Contravention of tax authority orders may attract imprisonment and fine under the new income tax framework.
    Clause 473 establishes an offence for contravening orders under section 247(1)(viii) or (4), penalising such contraventions with rigorous imprisonment up to the statutory maximum and a fine. The clause focuses on breaches concerning custody, retention, or handling of assets or records during investigative processes. It does not specify mens rea or procedural attributes such as cognizability or bailability, so application and defences will be shaped by judicial interpretation and the Bill's broader procedural framework.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation period for tax penalties: quarter based uniform timeline aligns penalty orders with assessment and appellate outcomes.
    Clause 472 standardises the limitation for imposing tax penalties by prescribing a uniform six month period measured from the end of the quarter tied to the completion of proceedings, appellate or revisional orders, or issuance of a penalty notice; it permits revision of penalty orders to reflect subsequent assessment modifications, mandates a reasonable opportunity to be heard before adverse penalty action, and excludes rehearing and judicial stay periods from limitation computation.
    Act RulesBills
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice in tax penalties: hearing rights and hierarchical approval govern imposition and administrative oversight under new bill.
    Clause 471 requires that no penalty be imposed without the assessee being heard or given a reasonable opportunity, mandates prior Joint Commissioner approval for penalties exceeding specified officer thresholds, and requires that penalty orders passed by authorities other than the Assessing Officer be sent to the Assessing Officer. It mirrors core safeguards of the existing law but omits scheme enabling provisions for faceless, technology driven procedures and transitional rules, creating potential uncertainties over thresholds, definition of reasonable opportunity, procedural delays, and modernization.

    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

      Examination of provision of Disqualification from Tonnage Tax Scheme : Clause 231(12) of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 and Section 115VS of the Income-tax Act, 1961

      17 May, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Clause 231 Method of opting of tonnage tax scheme and validity.

      Income Tax Bill, 2025

      Introduction

      The tonnage tax regime is a specialized taxation scheme for shipping companies, designed to provide certainty and competitive tax rates in line with international practices. Both the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (specifically Clause 231(12)) and the Income-tax Act, 1961 (specifically Section 115VS) contain provisions that regulate the eligibility and disqualification criteria for companies wishing to opt for or continue under the tonnage tax scheme. This commentary provides a comprehensive analysis of Clause 231(12), its legislative intent, operational mechanics, practical implications, and a detailed comparative analysis with Section 115VS of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

      Objective and Purpose

      The tonnage tax scheme was introduced into Indian law to create a competitive and stable fiscal environment for the shipping industry. The regime allows qualifying shipping companies to compute taxable income based on the net tonnage of their ships, rather than traditional profit-based computation, thereby reducing administrative complexity and aligning Indian law with global best practices.

      The core objective of Clause 231(12) and Section 115VS is to ensure the integrity of the tonnage tax scheme by prohibiting companies from arbitrarily entering and exiting the regime, or from benefitting from the scheme after significant non-compliance or regulatory exclusion. These provisions serve as a deterrent against misuse and maintain the scheme's intended stability.

      Detailed Analysis of Clause 231(12) of the Income Tax Bill, 2025

      Clause 231(12) reads as follows:

      A qualifying company,--
      (a) which on its own, opts out of the tonnage tax scheme; or
      (b) which makes a default in complying with the provisions contained in sections 232(1) to (20); or
      (c) whose option has been excluded from tonnage tax scheme in pursuance of an order made u/s 234(4),
      shall not be eligible to opt for tonnage tax scheme for ten years from the date of opting out or default or order.

      1. Disqualification Triggers

      • (a) Voluntary Opting Out: If a qualifying company chooses to exit the tonnage tax scheme on its own volition, it is disqualified from re-entering the scheme for a period of ten years from the date of opting out. This provision deters companies from opportunistically moving in and out of the scheme based on short-term tax planning considerations.
      • (b) Default in Compliance: Any default in complying with the provisions of sections 232(1) to (20) results in a similar ten-year disqualification. Sections 232(1) to (20) likely pertain to operational, reporting, and compliance obligations necessary for continued eligibility under the tonnage tax regime. This ensures that only consistently compliant companies benefit from the scheme.
      • (c) Exclusion by Order: If a company's option is excluded via a formal order u/s 234(4), usually due to serious non-compliance or regulatory breaches, the company faces the same ten-year bar. This formalizes the consequences of regulatory action and strengthens enforcement.

      2. Ten-Year Disqualification Period

      The ten-year period is a significant deterrent, reflecting the legislature's intention to prevent abuse of the tonnage tax scheme. It is calculated from the date of the triggering event-i.e., the date of opting out, default, or the exclusion order. This long exclusion period emphasizes the importance of regulatory compliance and the seriousness with which the legislature views the integrity of the tonnage tax regime.

      3. Scope and Coverage

      Clause 231(12) is broad in its scope, covering all possible avenues through which a company might lose eligibility-whether voluntarily, through non-compliance, or by regulatory action. The provision is clearly worded, leaving little room for interpretational ambiguity regarding the circumstances that trigger the disqualification.

      4. Legislative Intent and Policy Considerations

      The legislative intent is to foster long-term commitment to the tonnage tax regime and to ensure that only genuinely qualifying and compliant companies benefit from its concessions. The ten-year lockout period discourages companies from using the scheme as a transient tax planning tool. It also incentivizes robust compliance and discourages regulatory infractions.

      5. Interplay with Other Provisions

      Clause 231(12) operates in tandem with other provisions governing the tonnage tax scheme. For example, Clause 231(9) outlines the circumstances in which the option ceases to have effect, while Clause 231(10)-(11) addresses renewal procedures. Clause 231(12) acts as the enforcement mechanism, ensuring that companies which have lost eligibility cannot immediately re-enter the regime.

      6. Procedural Safeguards

      While Clause 231(12) itself is a substantive disqualification, procedural fairness is built into the overall framework (see Clause 231(5)), which ensures that companies are given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before exclusion. This aligns with principles of natural justice.

      Practical Implications

      1. For Shipping Companies

      • Long-Term Tax Planning: Companies must carefully assess their long-term business strategy before opting for or exiting the tonnage tax scheme, given the ten-year prohibition on re-entry.
      • Compliance Culture: The risk of a decade-long exclusion incentivizes companies to maintain stringent internal controls, robust compliance mechanisms, and timely reporting.
      • Risk Management: Companies must be vigilant in avoiding defaults, as even inadvertent non-compliance can trigger the disqualification penalty.

      2. For Tax Authorities

      • Enforcement Leverage: Tax authorities are equipped with a potent tool to enforce compliance and deter abuse of the tonnage tax regime.
      • Administrative Efficiency: The clear-cut ten-year exclusion reduces the need for repetitive eligibility assessments and enhances administrative certainty.

      3. For the Shipping Industry

      • Industry Stability: The provision promotes stability and predictability, aligning with international practices and making India an attractive jurisdiction for shipping operations.

      Comparative Analysis: Clause 231(12) vs. Section 115VS

      Textual Comparison

      Section 115VS of the Income Tax Act, 1961, provides:

      A qualifying company, which, on its own, opts out of the tonnage tax scheme or makes a default in complying with the provisions of section 115VT or section 115VU or section 115VV or whose option has been excluded from tonnage tax scheme in pursuance of an order made under sub-section (1) of section 115VZC, shall not be eligible to opt for tonnage tax scheme for a period of ten years from the date of opting out or default or order, as the case may be.

      The essential structure of Section 115VS is similar to Clause 231(12), but with the following differences:

      • Section 115VS references specific sections (115VT, 115VU, 115VV) in relation to defaults, whereas Clause 231(12) refers more generally to "the provisions contained in sections 232(1) to (20)".
      • Section 115VS refers to exclusion by order u/s 115VZC(1); Clause 231(12) refers to exclusion u/s 234(4).

      1. Structural and Substantive Similarities

      • Disqualification Triggers: Both provisions disqualify companies from re-entering the tonnage tax regime for ten years if they (a) voluntarily opt out, (b) default in compliance, or (c) are excluded by order.
      • Ten-Year Bar: The duration of the prohibition is identical-ten years from the relevant event.
      • Legislative Objective: Both are designed to prevent opportunistic behavior and ensure the integrity of the tonnage tax system.

      2. Differences in Drafting and Scope

      • Reference to Compliance Provisions:
        • Section 115VS makes explicit reference to specific sections (115VT, 115VU, 115VV) for compliance defaults, whereas Clause 231(12) refers more generally to "sections 232(1) to (20)." The latter may represent a consolidation or expansion of compliance requirements in the new Bill, potentially streamlining or broadening the scope of compliance obligations.
      • Exclusion Order Reference:
        • Section 115VS refers to exclusion under "an order made under sub-section (1) of section 115VZC," while Clause 231(12) refers to "an order made u/s 234(4)." This reflects a renumbering or reorganization of the statutory framework in the new Bill, but the substantive effect remains the same.
      • Language and Clarity:
        • Clause 231(12) uses more modern, simplified language and groups the triggers more clearly, enhancing accessibility and reducing ambiguity.
      • Integration with Application and Renewal Provisions:
        • Clause 231 of the 2025 Bill comprehensively sets out the application, approval, renewal, and cessation mechanisms for the tonnage tax scheme within a single section, whereas the 1961 Act disperses these across multiple sections. This structural integration may improve coherence and ease of understanding.

      3. Evolution and Policy Shifts

      • The shift from the 1961 Act to the 2025 Bill appears to reflect a move towards codification, modernization, and simplification of tax law. The consolidation of compliance triggers and the explicit reference to a range of compliance obligations (sections 232(1) to (20)) in the 2025 Bill may indicate a broader or more detailed compliance regime, potentially capturing a wider range of defaults.
      • The continued retention of the ten-year exclusion period underscores the legislature's ongoing commitment to the stability and integrity of the tonnage tax regime.

      4. Potential Ambiguities and Issues

      • Scope of Compliance Obligations: The reference to "sections 232(1) to (20)" in Clause 231(12) may require careful interpretation to ascertain the full extent of compliance obligations. If these sections are broader than the corresponding provisions in the 1961 Act, companies may face a wider array of potential defaults leading to disqualification.
      • Procedural Fairness: Both regimes appear to provide for procedural fairness (opportunity of being heard) before exclusion, but the precise procedural safeguards may differ based on the broader context of the new Bill.

      5. International Comparisons and Unique Features

      • The ten-year exclusion period is consistent with international tonnage tax regimes, which often include similar lockout periods to prevent abuse. The Indian approach is neither unusually harsh nor lenient by global standards.
      • The Indian regime's explicit enumeration of compliance triggers and the integration of application and renewal procedures within a single legislative framework may be considered a best practice for clarity and administrative efficiency.

      Conclusion

      Clause 231(12) of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 and Section 115VS of the Income-tax Act, 1961 perform a critical gatekeeping function in the administration of the tonnage tax scheme. By imposing a ten-year disqualification on companies that opt out, default, or are excluded by order, these provisions safeguard the integrity of the regime, deter opportunistic behavior, and incentivize long-term compliance. The 2025 Bill retains the core features of the earlier law while modernizing and clarifying the drafting, potentially expanding the scope of compliance obligations. For shipping companies, the message is clear: entry into the tonnage tax regime is a serious, long-term commitment, and any deviation from compliance or regulatory expectations carries significant consequences.


      Full Text:

      Clause 231 Method of opting of tonnage tax scheme and validity.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax