Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

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

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

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

No Folders have been created

    +

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

    NOTE:

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

    TMI Notes

    Back

    All TMI Notes

    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
      No Records Found

      TMI Notes

      Back

      All TMI Notes

      whatsappJoin Channel
      Showing Results for : Reset Filters

      Legal Framework of Rounding Off Total Income in India tax Law : Clause 516 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 Vs. Section 288A of the Income-tax Act, 1961

      17 July, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Clause 516 Rounding off of amount of total income, or tax payable or refundable.

      Income Tax Bill, 2025

      Introduction

      The practice of rounding off monetary values in taxation statutes is an established administrative mechanism designed to simplify computation, enhance uniformity, and reduce clerical errors. Both Clause 516 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 and Section 288A of the Income tax Act, 1961 address the manner in which total income, as well as tax payable or refundable, is to be rounded off for the purposes of the Act. This commentary provides an indepth analysis of Clause 516, exploring its legislative intent, operational mechanics, and practical implications, followed by a detailed comparative analysis with the existing Section 288A. The discussion also addresses potential ambiguities and the broader significance of such rounding provisions within the Indian tax law framework.

      Objective and Purpose

      The legislative intent behind rounding off provisions is rooted in administrative convenience and the need for clarity in financial transactions. The calculation of total income, tax payable, or refundable can result in figures with decimal values (paise), which are impractical for accounting and payment purposes. By mandating a uniform rounding mechanism, the legislature aims to: Eliminate ambiguity and disputes regarding minor amounts. Streamline accounting and payment processes for both taxpayers and the tax administration. Ensure consistency in the treatment of all taxpayers. Reduce the risk of errors resulting from manual or automated computations involving fractional amounts. Historically, the need for such provisions became evident as the tax base expanded and the quantum of transactions increased, making it necessary to standardize the treatment of minor amounts across the board. The rounding off rules, therefore, serve as a tool for efficient tax administration and compliance.

      Detailed Analysis of Clause 516 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025

      Clause 516 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, reads as follows:

      The amount of total income computed or any amount payable or refundable under this Act, shall be rounded off to the nearest multiple of ten rupees ignoring any part of a rupee consisting of paise and thereafter if such amount is not a multiple of ten, then- (a) such amount shall be increased to the next higher amount which is a multiple of ten, if the last figure in that amount is five or more; or (b) such amount shall be reduced to the next lower amount which is a multiple of ten, if the last figure is less than five, and the amount so rounded off shall be deemed to be the total income of the assessee or the amount payable and refund due, under this Act.

      This provision can be broken down into the following key components:

      1. Scope of Application

      Clause 516 applies to:

      • The amount of total income computed under the Act;
      • Any amount payable under the Act (i.e., tax liability);
      • Any amount refundable under the Act (i.e., tax refund).

      This broadens the scope to explicitly cover not only the total income but also amounts payable and refundable, ensuring comprehensive application throughout the tax computation and settlement process.

      2. Ignoring Paise

      The provision mandates that any part of a rupee consisting of paise shall be ignored. This means that amounts such as Rs. 100.75 are treated as Rs. 100 for the purposes of rounding off. This is a mechanical rule, leaving no discretion to taxpayers or authorities.

      3. Rounding to the Nearest Multiple of Ten

      After ignoring paise, the amount is considered for rounding to the nearest multiple of ten rupees. The mechanics are as follows:

      • If the last digit of the rupee amount is 5 or more, the amount is increased (rounded up) to the next higher multiple of ten.
      • If the last digit is less than 5, the amount is reduced (rounded down) to the next lower multiple of ten.

      This ensures that the rounding is always to the nearest ten rupees, applying the common rules of mathematical rounding.

      4. Deeming Provision

      The amount so rounded off is deemed to be the total income, the amount payable, or the amount refundable under the Act. This legal fiction ensures that the rounded amount is treated as the actual figure for all purposes under the Act, precluding any challenge or dispute over the unrounded amount.

      5. Absence of Exceptions or Discretion

      The provision does not provide for any exceptions or discretionary powers. It is a mandatory rule, applicable in all cases where the computation of total income, tax payable, or refund due is undertaken.

      6. Legislative Clarity and Drafting

      The language of Clause 516 is clear and unambiguous. The step-wise process-first ignoring paise, then rounding off to the nearest ten rupees-is explicitly laid out, reducing the scope for interpretational disputes.

      Comparative Analysis with Section 288A of the Income tax Act, 1961

      Section 288A of the Income tax Act, 1961, as amended, provides as follows:

      288A. The amount of total income computed in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this Act shall be rounded off to the nearest multiple of ten rupees and for this purpose any part of a rupee consisting of paise shall be ignored and thereafter if such amount is not a multiple of ten, then, if the last figure in that amount is five or more, the amount shall be increased to the next higher amount which is a multiple of ten and if the last figure is less than five, the amount shall be reduced to the next lower amount which is a multiple of ten; and the amount so rounded off shall be deemed to be the total income of the assessee for the purposes of this Act.

      A detailed comparison of the two provisions is as follows:

      1. Scope

      Section 288A: Applies only to the amount of total income computed under the Act.

      Clause 516: Applies to the amount of total income, as well as any amount payable or refundable under the Act.

      Analysis: Clause 516 specifically expands the scope to include tax payable and refundable, which were not explicitly covered u/s 288A. This expansion removes ambiguity regarding the rounding off of tax amounts, which was previously addressed in Section 288B of the 1961 Act.

      2. Rounding Mechanism

      Both provisions prescribe the same mechanical process: Ignore paise. If the resulting amount is not a multiple of ten, round up if the last digit is five or more, round down if less than five.

      Analysis: The rounding logic remains identical, ensuring continuity in administrative practice.

      3. Legal Effect

      Section 288A: The rounded amount is deemed to be the total income of the assessee for the purposes of the Act.

      Clause 516: The rounded amount is deemed to be the total income, amount payable, or refund due under the Act.

      Analysis: The deeming fiction in Clause 516 is broader and more comprehensive, clearly covering all possible scenarios.

      4. Relationship with Section 288B

      Section 288B of the 1961 Act deals with the rounding off of tax, penalty, interest, or any other sum payable or refundable under the Act, using the same rounding mechanism as Section 288A.

      Analysis: Clause 516 appears to consolidate the rules of both Section 288A (rounding of total income) and Section 288B (rounding of tax and other sums) into a single provision. This consolidation enhances clarity and reduces the risk of interpretative disputes regarding the applicability of separate provisions.

      5. Legislative Evolution

      Section 288A was inserted by the Finance Act, 1966 and amended in 1968 to remove subsection (2) and the Explanation, making it a single, mechanical rule.

      Clause 516 represents a further evolution, consolidating the rules and expanding the scope for administrative efficiency.

      Comparative Table

      AspectSection 288A of the Income tax Act, 1961Clause 516 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025
      ScopeTotal income onlyTotal income, amount payable, and amount refundable
      Rounding MechanismIgnore paise, round to nearest 10 (up if 5+, down if <5)Same as Section 288A
      Legal EffectRounded amount deemed as total incomeRounded amount deemed as total income, amount payable, or refund due
      ConsolidationSeparate provision for tax (Section 288B)Consolidates all rounding rules in one clause

      Practical Implications

      1. For Taxpayers

      Simplicity: Taxpayers benefit from a single, clear rule applicable to all relevant amounts, reducing confusion and the risk of computational errors.

      Predictability: The uniformity of application ensures that taxpayers can accurately predict their tax liabilities or refunds without ambiguity.

      2. For Tax Administrators

      Efficiency: The administrative burden of dealing with minor fractions is eliminated, and a single rule reduces the need for cross referencing multiple provisions.

      Reduction in Disputes: By codifying the rule for all relevant amounts, the scope for disputes regarding rounding off is minimized.

      3. For the Legal System

      Consistency: Judicial interpretation is simplified, as the provision is clear, consolidated, and leaves little room for ambiguity.

      Alignment with Modern Drafting: The move towards consolidation and clarity reflects modern legislative drafting standards, enhancing the overall coherence of the tax code.

      4. For Compliance and Technology

      Automation: The simple, algorithmic nature of the rule facilitates easy implementation in tax computation software and electronic filing systems.

      Potential Issues and Ambiguities

      Despite its apparent clarity, certain issues merit consideration:

      1. Treatment of Negative Amounts

      The provision does not explicitly address the rounding off of negative amounts (e.g., negative income or negative refunds). While such cases are rare, explicit clarification could prevent interpretational disputes.

      2. Application to Other Statutes

      If other tax statutes (e.g., GST, customs) adopt different rounding off rules, there could be inconsistencies in the treatment of tax liabilities across different domains.

      3. Transitional Provisions

      The transition from the 1961 Act to the new Act may require clear rules to ensure that amounts computed under the old Act but payable/refundable under the new Act are rounded off consistently.

      4. Rounding Off at Intermediate Stages

      The provision applies to the amount "computed" or "payable/refundable." It is important to clarify that rounding off should occur only at the final stage, not at intermediate computational steps, to avoid cumulative rounding errors.

      Conclusion

      Clause 516 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 represents a logical and progressive consolidation of the rounding off rules applicable to total income, tax payable, and refunds under the Indian income tax law. By expanding the scope to cover all relevant amounts and consolidating what was previously spread across two sections (288A and 288B) in the 1961 Act, the provision enhances clarity, reduces administrative burden, and aligns with best practices in tax administration. The mechanical and unambiguous nature of the rounding rule ensures uniform application and minimizes the risk of disputes over negligible amounts. While minor clarifications may be required in practice, the provision as drafted is robust and fit for purpose. The move towards consolidation and simplification is a welcome development, and future reforms may focus on harmonizing such rules across all fiscal statutes for greater administrative efficiency.


      Full Text:

      Clause 516 Rounding off of amount of total income, or tax payable or refundable.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax