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
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

      Comparison of Section 32 "Other deductions" between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

      18 August, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Section 32 Other deductions.

      Income-tax Act, 2025 [As Passed]

      At a Glance

      Clause 32 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) enumerates "other deductions" allowable in computing income under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession" (section 26). It matters for taxpayers engaged in business or profession, and for financial institutions and specified entities claiming sector-specific deductions. The Bill-version text is an earlier iteration; Document does not state an explicit effective date or enactment date. Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: Clause 32 is framed as a provision of the Income Tax Bill, 2025, dealing with deductions from income u/s 26 (Profits and gains of business or profession). The provision enumerates categories of deductible amounts (sub-clauses (a)-(k)) and provides definitions and scope for certain specialised deductions (notably clause (e) dealing with a special reserve for specified entities and clause (d) dealing with pro rata discount on zero coupon bonds).

      The Bill text supplies several intra-clause definitions (e.g., "specified entity", "eligible business", "infrastructure facility", "discount", "period of life of bond") and cross-references to other statutory provisions (e.g., sections 2(72) of the Companies Act, 2013; Explanation to section 80-IA(4)(i); sections 80-IA, Section 80-IB and other provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961). It also refers to income computation and disclosure standards u/s 276(2).

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Clause 32 lists deductible amounts allowed in computing business income. Key categories include:

      • Bonus/commission to employees (sub-clause (a)) - allowed provided the sum would not have been payable as profits or dividend had it not been paid as bonus/commission.
      • Interest on capital borrowed for business/profession (sub-clause (b)) - with an express exclusion: interest on capital borrowed for acquisition of an asset is not deductible for the period from borrowing until the asset is first put to use; and recurring subscriptions in specified Mutual Benefit Societies may be deemed capital borrowed.
      • Contribution by a public financial institution to a credit guarantee fund trust for small industries (sub-clause (c)) - allowed as per Central Government notification.
      • Pro rata amount of discount on zero coupon bonds (sub-clause (d)) - payable to specified issuers and to be calculated in a prescribed manner; definitions of "discount" and "period of life of bond" are provided.
      • Amounts carried to a special reserve by "specified entities" (sub-clause (e)) - subject to a cap of 20% of eligible business profits and an overall limit tied to twice paid-up share capital plus general reserves; detailed definitions of "specified entity", "eligible business" and "infrastructure facility" are supplied.
      • Deductions for non-capital expenditure incurred by statutory corporations/body corporates established by Central/State/Provincial Acts, if notified by Central Government and incurred for authorised objects (sub-clause (f)).
      • Expenditure by co-operative sugar manufacturers on purchase of sugarcane at prices not exceeding government-fixed/approved prices (sub-clause (g)).
      • Marked-to-market loss or other expected loss as computed per income computation and disclosure standards u/s 276(2)(sub-clause (h)); the Bill expressly adds that no deduction or allowance for such loss shall be allowed under any other provision of the Act.
      • Expenditure by companies for promoting family planning among employees (sub-clause (i)) - with capital part amortised over five years (one-fifth in year of incurrence), and applicability of specified sections ( 33(11) and 112(3), and specified provisions of sections 38, 39 and 45) as they apply to scientific research assets.
      • Loss on animals that die or become permanently useless - allowance being the difference between cost and realisation on carcass (sub-clause (j)).
      • Payment of securities transaction tax (STT) or commodities transaction tax (CTT) where taxable transactions are entered into in the course of business and the income arising therefrom is included under the business head (sub-clause (k)).

      Interpretation

      The text indicates a legislative intent to retain traditional business deduction principles while specifying sectoral and instrument-specific treatments. Prescriptive elements (e.g., prescribed manner of computing pro rata discount; prescriptions for deeming subscriptions as capital borrowed) suggest reliance on subordinate legislation or rules for operational detail. The Bill also seeks to prevent double claims for marked-to-market or expected losses by stating exclusivity of the deduction (explicit bar on claiming it elsewhere in the Act).

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Explicit carve-outs include:

      • Interest on capital borrowed for acquiring assets disallowed until asset is first put to use (temporal disallowance in clause (b)(i)).
      • Deductions in clause (e) are subject to a 20% cap and an accumulated ceiling tied to equity and reserves; excess is not deductible.
      • Family planning capital expenditure allowed by phased deduction and subject to application of specified cross-sectional provisions (clause (i)).
      • Marked-to-market/expected losses allowed only as computed under specified standards and not elsewhere (clause (h)).

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A bank (a specified entity) derives eligible business profits of INR 100 crore in a tax year. It places INR 25 crore into the special reserve. Under clause (e)(i) the deduction shall not exceed 20% of profits (i.e., INR 20 crore) - therefore INR 20 crore deductible; INR 5 crore excess not allowed. (This follows the text; numerical illustration is consistent with the clause.)
      • Example 2: A manufacturing firm borrows funds to acquire plant on 1 Jan and first puts plant to use on 1 Oct; interest attributable to the period 1 Jan-1 Oct is not deductible under clause (b)(i). (Factual depiction follows textual temporal disallowance.)
      • Example 3: A trading firm incurs marked-to-market losses computed under standards notified u/s 276(2). That deduction is claimable under clause (h) but cannot be claimed again under any other provision of the Act. (Reflects the exclusivity clause in the Bill.)

      Interplay

      Clause 32 cross-references multiple provisions in the Income-tax Act, 1961 (sections 33, 38, 39, 45, 80-IA, 80-IB) and the Companies Act, 2013 (section 2(72)). It also relies on standards to be notified u/s 276(2) and on unspecified "prescribed" rules for certain computations and deeming provisions. The text does not elaborate the procedural or rule-making framework beyond these references. Not stated in the document: the precise rules or notifications, timelines for prescriptions, or whether transitional arrangements apply.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Taxpayers will need to ensure correct temporal segregation of interest on funds borrowed for asset acquisition to exclude pre-commencement interest; maintain documentary evidence for dates of borrowing and date asset first put to use. For marked-to-market/expected losses, reliance on notified income computation and disclosure standards means entities must adopt those standards precisely and avoid claiming the same loss under other provisions.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: For special reserve claims (clause (e)), records establishing computation of "profits derived from an eligible business", paid-up share capital and general reserves are essential; for mutual benefit societies (clause (b)(ii)) documentation proving recurring subscriptions and satisfaction of prescribed conditions will be necessary; for family planning expenditures, capital/non-capital characterization and amortisation schedules should be maintained.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 32 consolidates a range of sector-neutral and sector-specific deductions under business income, combining standard operating deductions with targeted allowances (e.g., special reserve for specified entities).
      • Temporal disallowance of interest on borrowings for asset acquisition is expressly provided until the asset is first put to use - requiring careful tracking of dates.
      • Marked-to-market and expected losses are allowable only as computed under prescribed income computation and disclosure standards and (in the Bill) cannot be claimed under any other provision.
      • Special reserves for certain financial entities are capped at 20% of eligible business profits and subject to an accumulated ceiling related to capital and reserves.
      • Multiple cross-references to existing income-tax and companies law provisions indicate the clause is intended to operate within the broader legacy statutory framework; several operative computations are left to subordinate prescriptions.

      Differences between Clause 32 (Old Version) and Section 32 (As Passed)

      Comparative differences and their practical impact (based strictly on the two texts provided):

      • Reference to "specified entity" sub-clause (e)(C)(III): Old Bill refers to an undertaking in section 141(5) (Document 2). The As-Passed text refers to section 80-IB(10) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Document 1).
        • Practical impact: The change alters which category of undertakings qualify as "infrastructure facility" for the special reserve purpose, potentially expanding or narrowing eligibility depending on the statutory content of the cited sections. Exact practical consequence depends on the substantive definitions in the cited provisions (Not stated in the document).
      • Language and referential adjustments in definitions: Old Bill uses the phrase "as prescribed" in several places; the As-Passed text uses "as may be prescribed" or "as may be notified" in certain instances.
        • Practical impact: Minor drafting differences; "as may be prescribed" is conventionally broader/future-oriented, but documents do not set out legislative intent or differing legal effect beyond wording. Not stated in the document.
      • Marked-to-market/expected loss clause (h): Old Bill expressly adds that "no deduction or allowance for such loss shall be allowed under any other provision of this Act." The As-Passed version omits that explicit bar.
        • Practical impact: Under the Old Bill taxpayers were statutorily barred from double-claiming the same loss under other provisions; omission in the As-Passed text may permit interpretive questions about exclusivity of the deduction (though other provisions could independently limit double claims). The documents do not state legislative reasoning for the omission. Not stated in the document.
      • Family planning expenditure cross-references: Old Bill lists certain sections (including slightly different numbering and omitting section 45(10)); As-Passed text includes sections 33(11) and 112(3) and explicitly adds sections 45(6) and (10).
        • Practical impact: The As-Passed inclusion of section 45(10) could affect chargeability consequences on transfer/disposal of assets used for family planning, depending on that section's content. The documents do not state the legislative purpose for the change. Not stated in the document.
      • Terminology and minor drafting changes: e.g., Old Bill uses "sum" in (a) and "cost ... as reduced by" in (j) whereas As-Passed uses "amount" and "actual cost ... and the amount realised" respectively.
        • Practical impact: Language variations may create minor interpretive differences; substantive effect not apparent from the texts alone. Not stated in the document.

      Action Points

      • Review the final enacted text (As Passed) for the definitive wording and cross-references; reconcile eligibility for special reserve by checking the referenced sections (80-IB(10) / 141(5)) in the Income-tax Act, 1961. Not stated in the document: specific guidance on transitional treatment.
      • Ensure systems capture dates of borrowing and dates assets are first put to use for correct interest disallowance computations.
      • Adopt and document the income computation and disclosure standards u/s 276(2) once notified to substantiate marked-to-market or expected loss claims.

      Full Text:

      Section 32 Other deductions.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax