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

      Comparison of Section 2(29) "Company in which the public are substantially interested" between the Income‑Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income‑Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

      19 August, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Section 2 Definitions.

      Income-tax Act, 2025 [As Passed]

      At a Glance

      Clause 2 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) contains definitions of key terms used throughout the Bill. It is foundational for classification and operation of the Bill-affecting taxpayers, tax authorities and regulated entities across industry-because definitional clarity determines applicability of obligations, rates and exemptions. Effective date or enactment timing: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks:Clause 2 is the definitions provision of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version). It sets out definitions for terms such as "assessee", "company", "capital asset", "income", "domestic company", "short-term capital asset", "virtual digital asset" and many others. The scope is the whole Bill: each defined term is used elsewhere in the Bill/Act and establishes the meaning to be applied unless the context otherwise requires. The text supplies detailed descriptions and sub-clauses for many terms; where a term lacks further explanation in Clause 2, the document does not provide such explanation (see below under specific headings).

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Clause 2 provides a comprehensive glossary of terms and expressions. Coverage includes administrative office designations (e.g., "Assessing Officer", "Commissioner"), types of entities (e.g., "company", "domestic company", "foreign company", "public sector company"), income concepts (e.g., "income", "capital asset", "long-term capital gain", "short-term capital gain"), modes of transaction ("transfer", "slump sale", "demerger"), specialised items ("virtual digital asset", "zero coupon bond") and miscellaneous matters (e.g., "books of account", "fair market value"). Many definitions contain nested provisos, cross-references to other sections of the Bill or to other statutes (Companies Act, SEBI Act, RBI Act, etc.).

      Interpretation

      The definitions are expressed in ordinary statutory form: an opening saving ("unless the context otherwise requires"), followed by numbered sub-clauses. The Bill indicates that defined meanings apply throughout unless another meaning is clearly required by context. Interpretive cues placed in the text include cross-references to other sections and provisions of other statutes, and explicit provisos that exclude specified items from a definition (for example, exclusions from "capital asset"). The Bill does not expressly state legislative intent beyond the terms themselves; therefore, any broader purposive interpretation must be derived from the text and cross-references. Where the Bill departs from conventional drafting (see clause 2(29)(f) discussed earlier), interpretive uncertainty may arise and would need to be resolved by reference to plain meaning and legislative context.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Clause 2 contains numerous carve-outs and provisos. Examples include:

      • "capital asset" excludes stock-in-trade, personal effects and certain agricultural land, with a detailed table defining permissible distances from municipal limits.
      • "income" explicitly includes certain benefits, allowances and enumerated categories (e.g., assistance/subsidy), but excludes specific subsidy types under sub-clauses (w)(i) and (w)(ii).
      • "dividend" definition includes several inclusions and several listed exclusions (e.g., distributions on full cash shares, ordinary course loans by lenders, certain intergroup loans) together with contextual explanations of "accumulated profits".
      • "short-term capital asset" contains altered holding period rules for specified assets and a detailed scheme to compute holding periods in different factual scenarios.

      Where a particular exception or proviso is not present in the Bill text, the document states: Not stated in the document.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1 - Short-term vs Long-term: A security listed on a recognised Indian stock exchange held for 14 months will be a short-term capital asset because Clause 2(101)(b) substitutes "twelve months" for such securities. (This follows directly from the text.)
      • Example 2 - Agricultural land exclusion: A plot situated 7 kilometres from a municipal limit of a city with population 1,50,000 will fall within the "within distance" threshold in the table and therefore may not be excluded from "capital asset" as agricultural land. (Directly follows from Clause 2(22)(iii)(B) table.)
      • Example 3 - Virtual digital asset: A non-fungible token falls within the definition of "virtual digital asset" subject to any notification by the Central Government excluding specified digital assets. (Taken from Clause 2(111).)

      Interplay

      The definitions explicitly interact with other statutes and Bill provisions: references are made to the Companies Act, SEBI regulations, RBI Act, Special Economic Zones Act, Information Technology Act, and to schedules and other sections within the Bill (e.g., references to Schedule II, section numbers for assessment, Chapter XIX-C for advance tax). Where the Bill refers to rules, notifications or prescribed manner, those secondary instruments are necessary to give full effect to certain definitions (for instance, "fair market value" when market price cannot be ascertained is "determined in the manner, as prescribed"). The text does not specify those rules or their content: Not stated in the document.

      Differences between Section 2(29) - Act [As Passed] and Bill (Old Version)

      • Wording of condition clause: The Act (As Passed) uses the phrase "and either of the following conditions is fulfilled" (Document 1) while the Bill (Old Version) uses "and the following conditions are fulfilled" (Document 2).
        • Practical impact: The Bill's phrasing is grammatically susceptible to being read as requiring both listed conditions to be satisfied simultaneously rather than one or the other. This creates interpretive ambiguity on whether clause (f)(i) and (f)(ii) are alternative tests (as appears intended) or conjunctive tests. If read conjunctively, far fewer companies would qualify as a "company in which the public are substantially interested", with potential downstream effects on tax classification and benefits/exemptions tied to that status. The Act's later wording restores the clear disjunctive sense ("either ... is fulfilled"), reducing litigation risk on this point.
      • Minor drafting and punctuation differences: There are small differences in punctuation and phrasing (for example, the Bill refers to "the following conditions are fulfilled:-" and uses slightly different clause punctuation and spacing).
        • Practical impact: These are drafting-level variations with minimal substantive effect except insofar as punctuation/connector choice affects statutory interpretation (see preceding point).
      • Substantive content: No substantive alteration to the enumerated categories (clauses (a) to (f)) or the special proviso reducing the 50% test to 40% for certain Indian companies is visible between the two texts.
        • Practical impact: The categories of companies listed remain materially the same; the primary risk from the Bill language is interpretive (conjunctive vs disjunctive) rather than a change in policy scope.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Taxpayers must pay careful attention to definitional nuances (e.g., holding periods for capital assets, the meaning of "dividend", and the thresholds in "company in which the public are substantially interested"). Ambiguities in drafting (notably the conjunctive/disjunctive phrasing risk in clause 2(29)(f) of the Bill) may give rise to disputes with the tax administration.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: The text implies the need to retain documentary evidence supporting factual classifications - e.g., shareholding records (to evidence percentage holdings throughout the tax year), listing status at year-end, valuation documents for fair market value, records of asset holding periods and conversion dates, and documentation supporting the characterisation of benefits/subsidies. Where the document requires prescribed procedures for valuation or conditions, those procedures themselves are Not stated in the document.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 2 is foundational: definitions determine the operation and reach of the Bill across taxpayers and administration.
      • The Bill contains detailed, often technical definitions with multiple cross-references and provisos that materially affect tax treatment.
      • Certain definitions require secondary rules or notifications ("prescribed" manner) which are not provided in the document: Not stated in the document.
      • Drafting differences between the Bill and the Act (As Passed) are largely textual, but can create interpretive risk (notably in clause 2(29)(f)).
      • Taxpayers and advisers should focus on documentation of shareholding, asset conversion/allotment dates, and classification evidence to minimise disputes.

      Full Text:

      Section 2 Definitions.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax