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
    TDS and International Transactions: Categorization of Payments under the ambit of "royalty" or "fees...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Assessment u/s 153C and Unexplained Investments: A Case Study in Legal Reasoning
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Delhi High Court Elucidates on the Scope of Section 80IA in the Context of Business Expansion: Inter...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Penalty Limitations and Reasonable Cause: Navigating the Nuances of Tax Penalties
    Joint Insolvency Applications in Real Estate and Fulfillment of Threshold under IBC: Limitation and ...
    Digital Authentication in Tax Notices and the Interplay of Sections 61 and 74 in GST Law: Exploring ...
    Confirmation of GST demand by adjudicating Show Cause notice u/s 73: Procedural Requirements and Fai...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Customs Duty of an EOU and the Fate of Obsolete Imports: Destroying Obsolete Goods without Paying Du...
    Understanding the Bail Denial: Case Analysis of a Money Laundering Offense
    When Taxpayers Make Mistakes in Filing GST Returns: Understanding the Legal Aspect of GST Rectificat...
    Navigating Insolvency Proceedings: Understanding CoC's Role and Section 65 of IBC in Corporate Liqu...
    In-depth Legal Examination of a High-Profile Tax Evasion and Forgery Case: Bail Application Denied
    Unraveling the Inverted Duty Structure: Complexities of ITC Refunds in GST
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Reasonable Time for Adjudication of Show Cause Notice (SCN): The law requires authorities to exercis...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Navigating the Legal Labyrinth of Second-Hand Goods Import: The Intersection of Trade Policy and Jud...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Income Tax Return Delays: High Court Rules on Tax Authority's Decision-Making Boundaries
    Navigating Tax Law Complexities: judicial approach towards the adjudication and appeal process
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    The Interplay of Sales and Bogus Purchases in Tax Evasion Cases: Assessing Tax Evasion Allegations
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Proportionality and Evidence in Tax Assessments: Accommodation entries, Bogus Purchase and Estimatio...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Judicial Scrutiny of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) Non-Deposit: Protecting the Rights of Taxpayers Ag...
❯❯
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
    Royalty vs fees for included services: classification of cross border lead generation payments determines TDS obligation under tax treaty.
    Categorisation of cross border payments as royalty or fees for included services under the India US DTAA determines withholding under Section 195. Royalties cover payments for use of intellectual property; fees for included services require that technical knowledge, skill, or know how be made available. Services limited to lead generation, databases, or market facilitation without transfer of proprietary technical content do not qualify as either category and therefore fall outside the DTAA based TDS obligation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Search-based assessment jurisdiction governs treatment of unexplained investments when records are absent, shifting the burden of proof to the assessee.
    Assessment based on search-derived incriminating material applies when jurisdiction under search-based assessment is not contested, and unexplained investments are taxed depending on whether amounts are recorded in books of account. The assessee bears the onus to explain investments; absence of records, non-filing of returns and non-cooperation justify adverse inferences. Procedural elements such as delay condonation, set-aside orders and cooperation in reassessment affect the assessment process, while interest for non-furnishing of returns is tied to the timing of the regular assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Scope of Section 80IA: expansion within the same undertaking does not automatically forfeit tax holiday eligibility.
    The court considered whether adding services and acquiring additional licenses by a telecommunications company created a new "undertaking" for tax holiday purposes. Finding that the company continued its original business using largely the same infrastructure and manpower, the court endorsed the Tribunal's conclusion that expansion within the same operational framework does not automatically constitute a separate undertaking and should not defeat eligibility for the tax holiday intended to encourage capital intensive projects.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation for tax penalties: emphasis on initiation of action preserves enforcement; reasonable cause evaluated by business realities.
    Applicability of the limitation period is determined by the initiation of action rather than the formal start of penalty proceedings, making the triggering of enforcement activity the operative moment for limitation. The reasonable cause doctrine is applied with attention to the appellant's bank like operations despite its cooperative structure, recognizing long standing practices and business realities as bearing on culpability for transaction handling contraventions.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Joint application maintainability under IBC: interconnected real estate defaults can meet allottee threshold despite limitation objections.
    Maintainability of a joint application under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is supported where separate corporate participants in a real estate project have interconnected obligations, allowing joinder in a single filing. The creditor threshold for initiating insolvency by allottees can include claims affected by limitation when the default is a continuous breach, producing a continuing cause of action under the Limitation Act and thereby supporting counting such claims toward the allottee threshold.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Digital authentication of tax notices enables enforcement despite verification procedures not being an absolute prerequisite for punitive action.
    The analysis focuses on the legal effect of digitally authenticated GST portal notices, the sufficiency of portal-based service for triggering taxpayer obligations, and the distinction between routine verification of returns and discretionary enforcement actions for suspected fraudulent defaults; it observes that verification is not an absolute prerequisite to initiate enforcement where officers reasonably suspect fraud, and that failure to engage with portal notices weakens natural justice claims.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice breach: non self contained, short notice show cause demands require reissuance with fair opportunity.
    A show cause notice initiating an adjudicatory demand must be self contained, supply sufficient material for response, and afford a reasonable opportunity to reply; an inadequate content and an unreasonably short response period (well below the preferred thirty days and below a minimum of fifteen days) violate audi alteram partem and procedural fairness. Defective notices warrant issuance of a fresh, legally valid notice rectifying the procedural defects, and may attract costs consequences against the issuing authority.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Destruction of obsolete imports: destruction with Customs permission can relieve full customs duty subject to procedural compliance.
    Whether imported raw materials and components rendered obsolete may be destroyed without paying customs duty where the unit obtains Customs permission and offers to pay duty on scrap value; reliance was placed on the Foreign Trade Policy, Circular No. 60/1999 Cus and an amendment to the governing Notification which exempts duty when goods are destroyed with Customs' permission, balanced against the Revenue's contention that non use within prescribed time attracts duty.
    Case LawsPMLA
    Show AI Summary
    Money laundering offence: bail refused where admissible witness statements and accused failed to discharge burden showing non involvement.
    Bail was refused where admissible witness statements provided a prima facie basis to implicate the appellant in money laundering and the accused failed to show non involvement or low risk of reoffending. Money laundering was treated as an independent offence tied to dealings in proceeds, admissible statements supported inferences from financial transactions and concealment, parity was held non automatic, and discretionary release for trial delay does not guarantee bail in serious economic offences.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    GST rectification: inadvertent filing errors may be amended when no revenue loss, encouraging taxpayer-friendly compliance.
    Rectification of GST return entries is permissible where errors are inadvertent and do not cause revenue loss. The court interprets CGST/MGST filing and correction provisions purposively, recognising practical difficulties faced by taxpayers and the central importance of accurate returns for downstream GST processes. Authorities are urged to permit amendments by online or manual means in cases of genuine mistake without fiscal prejudice, promoting a taxpayer friendly and pragmatic approach consistent with other high court decisions.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    CoC autonomy in insolvency: CoC may decide liquidation prior to plan confirmation and section 65 targets malicious filings.
    Committee of Creditors autonomy over liquidation is recognized: the CoC may lawfully decide liquidation under Section 33(2) before confirmation of a resolution plan, and Section 65 requires clear evidence of filings made for purposes other than insolvency resolution before imposing penal consequences.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Bail considerations: Serious economic offence allegations constrain pretrial liberty when evidence tampering and investigative integrity risks exist.
    Bail considerations focus on the seriousness of alleged tax evasion, forgery and conspiracy under the IPC, the risk of evidence tampering or witness influence, and the accused's antecedents; ongoing investigation complexity and public interest in protecting the exchequer weigh against interim release. Arguments relying on GST compounding or procedural non-compliance are distinguished from IPC offences, and precedents concerning customs or GST matters are treated as contextually different when assessing pretrial liberty.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit refund: prior IGST refunds do not bar unutilized ITC claims; supporting evidence required for reconsideration.
    The court analysed entitlement to refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit under an inverted duty structure and held that prior IGST refunds for zero-rated supplies do not automatically bar a Section 54 refund claim; absence of debit entries alone cannot justify rejection. The decision emphasises the requirement to submit comprehensive supporting documents distinguishing inputs affected by the inverted duty structure and directs reconsideration allowing additional evidence and a reasoned order consistent with statutory conditions and principles of natural justice.
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Show AI Summary
    Reasonable Time for Adjudication: undue delay undermines natural justice and precludes indefinite postponement of proceedings.
    Adjudication of an excise Show Cause Notice must occur within a reasonable time so as to preserve evidentiary integrity and witness availability; prolonged inaction between issuance of an SCN and hearing prejudices the respondent, infringes the principles of natural justice, and requires statutory time-limit language to be interpreted to prevent indefinite delay.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Second-hand goods import classification clarified: multifunction capital equipment falls under unrestricted category, subject to compliance and duty measures.
    The court determined that imported second-hand multifunction print and copying machines fall within the Foreign Trade Policy 2023 unrestricted category I(d) for second-hand capital goods and were incorrectly classified as prohibited by customs; it contrasted the 2023 and 2019 policies, relied on precedent, and directed the customs department to pass appropriate orders within a reasonable time while permitting provisional measures subject to enhanced duty payment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay: focus on admissibility of the request, not the substantive merits of the tax claim.
    The legal principle requires that the authorized officer considering a condonation application under Section 119(2)(b) confine inquiry to the admissibility of the request and the justification for delay; assessment of the substantive merits of the taxpayer's income or loss claim is not part of the condonation exercise, and evidentiary review is limited to matters relevant to excusing the delay.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty under CGST law prompts appeal remedy and partial refund direction, preserving pre-deposit and taxpayer rights.
    The adjudicating officer withdrew the demand for inadmissible input tax credit and related interest and penalty, while separately imposing a penalty under Section 122(1)(vii) of the CGST Act adjusted against amounts paid by the petitioner. The court recognized the petitioner's appellate remedy and directed a partial refund subject to retention as pre-deposit, reflecting the procedural interplay between administrative adjudication and judicial review and safeguarding taxpayer rights during appeal.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Interplay of sales and bogus purchases: sales consistency limits rejection of purchases and favors gross profit alignment for taxation.
    For traders, rejection of purchases cannot proceed in isolation where declared sales exhibit regularity; cost of goods sold must be coherent with recorded sales. Tax adjustments should compare differential gross profit margins and align challenged purchases with genuine GP rates, allowing proportional taxation reconciliations rather than adding the entire value of disputed purchases as income.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Proportionality in tax assessments preserved: additions limited to profit element where sales are accepted, not entire purchase.
    Alleged accommodation entries may be restricted to taxation of the profit element where sales from those purchases are accepted; the tribunal limited an addition accordingly and the court upheld that proportionality. Separately, an enhanced gross profit addition was deleted because there was no concrete evidence to displace the assessee's declared book results; the court agreed that revenue must meet the evidentiary burden before altering declared figures.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tax Deducted at Source protection: taxpayers not liable for employer's failure to deposit TDS; refunds should not be adjusted.
    The note explains that TDS credit protection bars holding an assessee liable for tax already deducted by an employer who failed to remit it; employers bear the deposit obligation as tax-collecting agents. Adjusting taxpayer refunds or using coercive measures to recover demands arising from employer non-deposit contravenes the protective principle and indirect recovery limits, and authorities should correct credit mismatches rather than treat deductees as liable.

    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 4 “BASIS OF CHARGE” 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 4 Charge of income-tax.

      Income-tax Act, 2025 [As Passed]

      At a Glance

      Document: Clause 4 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) - provision establishing the charge of income-tax. It sets out the basis on which income-tax is to be charged, the taxable base (total income of the tax year), inclusion of additional income-tax, treatment of non-tax-year periods, and obligations for deduction/collection/advance payment. It affects all taxpayers and the tax administration. Effective date or decision date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: Clause 4 is located in Chapter II ("Basis of Charge") of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version). It articulates the foundational charge rule that links the rate-setting function (a Central Act enacting rates for a tax year) with the charging mechanism under this Bill. Definitions beyond the text of Clause 4 (for example, definitions of "tax year", "person", or procedural provisions) are not contained within Clause 4 and therefore: Not stated in the document.

      Clause 4 explicitly covers: (i) the triggering of rates enacted by a Central Act; (ii) that charge is on total income of the tax year of every person; (iii) that "income-tax" includes any additional income-tax, by whatever name called; (iv) charging in respect of income of periods other than the tax year where the Act so provides; and (v) obligations for deduction/collection at source or advance payment in respect of chargeable income.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Clause 4 sets out the charge of income-tax in five sub-clauses:

      • Sub-clause (1): Income-tax for any tax year shall be charged according to the Act at rates enacted by a Central Act for that tax year. The provision links rate determination (a Central Act) with charging under this Bill.

      • Sub-clause (2): The charge under sub-clause (1) is on the total income of the tax year of every person as per this Act.

      • Sub-clause (3): Income-tax also includes any additional income-tax, by whatever name called, levied under this Act.

      • Sub-clause (4): If the Act provides charge in respect of income of a period other than the tax year, income-tax shall be charged accordingly.

      • Sub-clause (5): For the income chargeable under sub-clause (2), income-tax shall be deducted or collected at source or paid in advance as provided under this Act.

      Coverage: persons liable to tax (term "every person" used) and the mechanism by which the charge applies. The provision is foundational; operational details (rates, computation rules, exemptions, assessments, appeals, procedural mechanisms) are outside Clause 4 and: Not stated in the document.

      Interpretation

      Legislative intent and interpretive signals present in the text include:

      • A linkage between rate-setting (Central Act) and the charging operation under the Bill - the Bill does not itself set rates for tax years but gives effect to rates enacted by Central Act.

      • Taxable base is expressed in aggregate language ("total income of the tax year of every person"), indicating a comprehensive annual basis of charge rather than, for example, a transactional levy.

      • Inclusion of "additional income-tax" by whatever name called appears designed to encompass levy labels and avoid form-based avoidance.

      • Provision for periods other than tax year signals legislative flexibility to allow charging on other accounting or specified periods where the Act so provides.

      Beyond these textual cues, legislative purpose, policy rationales, and explanatory memorandum content: Not stated in the document.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Clause 4 contains no explicit provisos or exceptions. It does not specify exclusions, thresholds, or special categories (e.g., non-residents, charitable institutions). Those matters are addressed elsewhere in the Bill or other laws: Not stated in the document.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A resident individual's total income for tax year 2025-26 is computed under the Act. The Central Act enacts rates for 2025-26; income-tax is charged on that total income at those rates and is subject to deduction at source or advance payment as prescribed.

      • Example 2: The Act provides for charging tax on a specified accounting period (e.g., a fiscal quarter) for certain entities. Under sub-clause (4), where the Act so provides, income-tax shall be charged in respect of that period rather than the tax year.

      Interplay

      Clause 4 cross-references to rate-setting by a Central Act and anticipates other provisions of the Bill dealing with computation, withholding, and advance payment. However, specific Rules/Notifications/Circulars or other sections that modify or implement Clause 4 are not cited in the text: Not stated in the document. The provision establishes a high-level interaction between (a) the Central Act that enacts rates and (b) the Bill that sets charge mechanics; further operational interplay is governed by other provisions external to Clause 4.

      Differences Between Section 4 (Income-tax Act, 2025 [As Passed]) and Clause 4 (Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version) and Practical Impact

      • Wording and grammatical re-ordering in sub-section (1):

        Old Bill: "Income-tax for any tax year shall be charged as per the provisions of this Act at the rate or rates which are enacted by a Central Act for such tax year."

        Passed Act: "Where any Central Act enacts that income-tax shall be charged for any tax year at any rate or rates, income-tax for such tax year shall be charged at that rate or those rates in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this Act."

        Practical impact: Purely stylistic/clarificatory. The Passed Act places primacy on the Central Act's enactment as the triggering event and clarifies that the charge must be in accordance with this Act. No substantive change to the legal effect is apparent.

      • Difference in cross-reference in sub-section (5):

        Old Bill: "For the income chargeable under sub-section (2), income-tax shall be deducted or collected at source or paid in advance as provided under this Act."

        Passed Act: "For the income chargeable under this section, income-tax shall be deducted or collected at source or paid in advance as provided under this Act."

        Practical impact: The Passed Act broadens the cross-reference from "sub-section (2)" (which refers to charge on total income of the tax year) to "this section" (which includes charging on other periods under subsection (4) as well). This is a minor but potentially meaningful drafting clarification: withholding/deduction/advance payment obligations are linked to all income chargeable u/s 4 (including income of periods other than the tax year), avoiding any unintended limitation to only tax-year charges. Functionally, it clarifies the scope of withholding/advance payment obligations, potentially preventing interpretive disputes.

      • Other differences:

        The two texts are otherwise substantially the same: both (a) impose a charge of income-tax at rates enacted by Central Act; (b) state charge is on total income of the tax year of every person; (c) include "income-tax" to encompass additional income-tax by whatever name called; and (d) provide charging for periods other than tax year where provided.

        Practical impact: No substantive change in core charging mechanism. Changes are drafting clarifications that may aid interpretation and application but do not introduce new concepts or taxpayer obligations beyond existing structure.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Clause 4 confirms that income-tax liability arises on the computation of total income for the tax year, and that withholding/collection/advance payment duties attach to chargeable income. Practical compliance therefore depends on the correct identification of the tax year, accurate computation of "total income" (as defined elsewhere), and adherence to withholding and advance payment schedules specified in other provisions.
      • Record-keeping/evidence points: Although Clause 4 does not prescribe documentation, its emphasis on deduction/collection and advance payment implies taxpayers and withholding agents should maintain records supporting computation of total income, bases for withholding, dates and amounts of advance payments, and any alternative period-based computations if the Act permits charging for non-tax-year periods. Specific documentary requirements: Not stated in the document.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 4 establishes the foundational charge of income-tax tied to rates enacted by a Central Act.
      • The taxable base is the "total income of the tax year of every person" unless the Act provides otherwise.
      • "Income-tax" is defined inclusively to cover any additional income-tax regardless of name.
      • The Clause permits charging on periods other than the tax year where expressly provided by the Act.
      • Withholding, collection at source and advance payment obligations apply to income chargeable under the Clause (specific procedures are provided elsewhere).
      • The Old Bill's language is substantively similar to the Passed Act; the key drafting difference concerns the cross-reference in the withholding/advance-payment sub-clause.
      • Operational details, definitions, effective date, and legislative history are not contained in Clause 4: Not stated in the document.

      Full Text:

      Section 4 Charge of income-tax.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax