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
    The Legal Contours of Input Tax Credit Eligibility: Procedural Aspects of GST and ITC
    Case LawsService Tax
    Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM): Service Tax Implications for Exporters: A Legal Perspective on Forei...
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Cheque Dishonour and Corporate Responsibility: Analyzing the Supreme Court's Latest Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Notices / orders without DIN. The Critical Role of Procedural Compliance in Tax Administ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Tax Exemptions: Capitation Fees in Educational Institutions: A Legal Quagmire
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Procedural Technicalities vs. Substantive Justice in Tax Administration: A High Court Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revision u/s 263 and denial of deduction u/s 80IA: A Critical Analysis of the Delhi High Court's Jud...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Condonation of Delay and Jurisdictional Challenges: A Case Analysis of ITAT Kolkata's Decision
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Legal Analysis: Scrutiny of Share Capital and Premium Under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Judicial Scrutiny of Retrospective Cancellation of Charitable Trust Registration: A Case Analysis of...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Office and Prosecution under Income Tax Act: Jurisdiction of Trial Court - Decision in a High Profil...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxation of Unexplained Income at Higher Rate of tax u/s 115BBE : A Comprehensive Analysis of the IT...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Analysis of ITAT Mumbai Judgment - Transfer Pricing Adjustment Dispute: Period of limitation u/s 144...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    In-Depth Analysis of Key Issues in the ITAT Chennai Judgement
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Doctrine of Merger in Income Tax Assessment: An Analysis of ITAT Chennai's Recent Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Delay in refund processing, the petitioner's entitlement to interest, and the court's decision to gr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Rejection of revision application u/s 264 in favor of assessee: A beneficial provision of Income Tax...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    An Analysis of ITAT Decision on International Taxation, Capital Gains, and DTAA
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxability of CSR fund: Treatment of certain funds received by an entity, particularly focusing on w...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Legal Analysis of ESOP Deduction and allowability in the Revised Return of income: An ITAT decision.
❯❯
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 LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit eligibility: procedural limits on reversing claims without supplier inquiry and GSTR-2A non-reflection not dispositive.
    Section 16(2) sets the statutory conditions for Input Tax Credit-tax invoice, receipt, tax payment, and return filing-and GSTR-2A serves only as a facilitator; non-reflection there does not automatically negate eligibility. Tax authorities must inquire into supplier conduct and observe procedural safeguards before reversing ITC or recovering tax from the recipient, with judicial precedents and CBIC clarifications shaping when exceptions may apply.
    Case LawsService Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reverse charge mechanism: exporter not liable for foreign bank charges when Indian bank is the direct service recipient.
    The core issue is whether an exporter is liable under the Reverse Charge Mechanism for foreign bank charges deducted from export proceeds when those charges are imposed on and paid by an Indian intermediary bank. The Tribunal's analysis focuses on the definition of service recipient and territorial scope, concluding that the direct recipient-the Indian bank-is the party liable to discharge service tax while the exporter, as an indirect beneficiary without direct dealings with the foreign bank, is not subject to reverse charge.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Directorial liability: strict averment requirement prevents presuming directors' responsibility without specific allegation, leading to quashing.
    The Court held that directorial liability requires specific averment that the director was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the time of the offence; mere titular position or awareness of cheque issuance is insufficient. It emphasized the necessity of serving the statutory notice prerequisite and rejected liberal construction to cure absent statutory averments, quashing proceedings against directors for non-compliance.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    DIN requirement in tax administration: absence of mandatory DIN can invalidate assessment orders unless exceptional circumstances apply.
    Failure to quote the mandatory computer-generated Document Identification Number (DIN) in assessment orders, as required by the CBDT Circular from 1 October 2019, constitutes a procedural defect that can render the order invalid unless the revenue demonstrates that the issuance fell within the Circular's narrowly drawn exceptional circumstances; the Tribunal found such non-compliance in the order dated 15 October 2019 and the High Court affirmed, while the Supreme Court granted interim stay for further consideration.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Capitation fee allegations challenge admissibility and attribution of seized evidence in charitable trust tax exemption inquiries.
    Alleged collection of capitation fees by a registered charitable trust threatens its exemption under Section 11; most evidence was seized from employees' residences, invoking the presumption under Section 132(4A) and raising attribution issues. Employee admissions later retracted, similar statement drafting, declarations under the Income Declaration Scheme 2016, and trustees' acknowledgments create contradictory evidentiary threads that complicate admissibility, credibility, and whether the seized funds can be treated as trust income.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay in tax compliance: liberal interpretation protects bona fide taxpayers from technical disqualification.
    The court analysed whether delay in filing Form 10 could be condoned, considering the petitioner's unawareness of post 2016 amendments, CBDT circulars and precedent, and applying principles that each case be judged on its facts; it stressed that failure to claim accumulation does not by itself show absence of intent to comply and urged a liberal approach to mitigate genuine hardship and prevent procedural technicalities from defeating substantive justice.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Section 263 limited to substantial legal errors; mere differences of opinion don't justify revisional tax action.
    Scope of Section 263 is confined to instances where an assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to revenue in a substantial way, not mere differences of opinion. Migration of licences from IP VPN to NLD ILD does not, by itself, create a new undertaking defeating entitlement to deduction under Section 80IA(4)(ii), particularly where identical deductions were previously allowed; administrative migration requires clear proof of substantive change before re characterising eligibility.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Delay condonation based on sufficient cause upheld where illness, relocation and pandemic disruption justified late filing and jurisdictional challenge.
    The tribunal applied a purposive construction of sufficient cause to condone substantial delay where cumulative factors-serious illness, change of residence and pandemic disruption-made filing untimely. It also found the assessment infirm for want of territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction because the taxpayer had established residence and filing history in a different territorial unit and administrative guidance allocated jurisdiction accordingly, underscoring that proper vesting of authority is a condition precedent to valid assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Unexplained cash credits under Section 68 require taxpayers to prove investor identity and genuineness; authorities must rebut with evidence.
    Applicability of Section 68 requires the assessee to establish investor identity, creditworthiness and transaction genuineness-via PAN, tax returns, audited accounts and bank statements-and once this initial burden is satisfied, the burden shifts to the revenue to rebut with concrete evidence; mere suspicion or inability to trace an ultimate source does not alone justify additions if investments are reasonable relative to investors' net worth and effected through banking channels.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Retrospective cancellation of charitable trust registration invalidated due to lack of competent jurisdiction and procedural non compliance.
    The Tribunal invalidated the cancellation of a charitable trust's registration because the regional authority lacked competence to cancel under the statutory scheme and the transfer used to reassign the matter was improper; it further held that applying the newer cancellation provision retrospectively to deprive the trust of its recognized status was not legally tenable, emphasizing required notice, hearing and adherence to principled statutory interpretation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdiction in multi locational offences governs venue determination; magistrate discretion and supervisory thresholds shape tax prosecution forums under criminal procedure.
    The judgment analyses Cr.P.C. place of offence principles in multi locational tax prosecutions, assessing whether procedural acts like recording statements under the Income Tax Act determine venue. It evaluates the magistrate's discretion in taking cognizance where alleged offences span jurisdictions and outlines the threshold for superior court supervisory intervention, emphasising that extraordinary petitions require demonstration of abuse of process or exceptional circumstances before altering magistrate venue determinations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Taxation of unexplained income: higher-rate treatment applies, and deductions including partner salary are disallowed.
    The tribunal held that excess unrecorded stock and cash found on survey were assessable as unexplained investment and unexplained money, and that the special higher-rate taxation provision applies to such income, taxing it at a higher fixed rate and disallowing any deduction; consequently the claimed partner's salary relating to the unexplained investment was disallowed.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation under section 144C: assessment issued beyond statutory period, leaving transfer pricing adjustment unresolved on procedural grounds.
    The tribunal focused on the statutory time limit under Section 144C(13) for passing assessment orders after DRP directions, treated the order as barred by limitation and therefore did not adjudicate substantive transfer pricing challenges raised under Section 92CA. Consequently, technical disputes over comparability, exclusion/inclusion of comparables, and the profit level indicator computation were left unexamined.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Capitalization of interest: tribunal scrutinised whether interest and forex on capital projects form capital cost or permit revenue deduction.
    The tribunal analyzed four core taxation questions: whether interest and foreign exchange fluctuations written off from Capital Work in Progress are capital or revenue in nature and their nexus to business operations; whether write off of a DG set component should be treated within the block of assets for depreciation or as a revenue repair; the applicability of Section 36(1)(iii) to proportionate interest on interest free advances to related concerns and the presumption from mixed funds; and the evidentiary requirements to establish that inter corporate deposits were funded from own funds rather than borrowed monies for interest deduction purposes.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Doctrine of merger limits revisional jurisdiction under appeals, preventing collateral review of identical legal issues.
    The Doctrine of Merger operates to treat legal issues from an assessment as merged into appeal proceedings before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), thereby constraining subsequent revisional jurisdiction over those same issues; applied where initial assessment, reassessment notices and search-related assessment steps overlap, and supported by judicial precedent limiting collateral revision.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Interest on delayed tax refunds where delay is not attributable to the taxpayer under Section 244A.
    Entitlement to interest under Section 244A arises when refund payment is delayed for reasons not attributable to the assessee. The petitioner, a foreign company, faced delays caused by technical issues and incorrect guidance regarding banking details; the court treated the delay as the respondents' responsibility and applied Section 244A to award interest for the period of delay, directing payment according to the statutory rate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revision application under Section 264: remand for fresh merits review when alternative remedies were improperly relied upon.
    Whether a revision under Section 264 may be denied solely because alternative remedies existed and whether appeal provisions applied to DDT-related treaty claims; the court found that rejecting revision on the mere availability of other remedies was untenable and that the appealed provision was inapplicable, directing fresh merits consideration of treaty relief and related tax computation by the Principal Commissioner.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    DTAA interpretation clarifies capital gains tax treatment for cross-border share sales under residency and grandfathering conditions.
    Taxation of capital gains from a Mauritius-based entity's sale of Indian company shares is analysed against the India-Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, focusing on DTAA allocation of taxing rights, timing of acquisition and transfer, and applicability of grandfathering provisions. The Tribunal assessed tax residency and treaty entitlement by examining corporate structure and commercial substance, applying the substance over form principle to determine whether treaty benefits were appropriate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Fiduciary funds not treated as taxable income when entity acts as facilitator; earmarked project funds excluded from income.
    The Tribunal examined whether earmarked receipts should be included in taxable income or treated on the balance sheet, focusing on jurisdictional validity of scrutiny notices, whether amounts were routed through the income and expenditure account or retained as earmarked funds, and whether receipts held in a fiduciary capacity for disaster relief were excluded from the entity's income because the entity acted only as facilitator without beneficial ownership.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    ESOP deduction in revised returns - tribunal permits claim within revision window, stressing valuation, timing and documentary consistency.
    Deductibility of ESOP-related costs in a revised return hinges on compliance with the statutory time limit for revision and on accounting and evidentiary consistency: correct year of recognition, reliable grant date valuation (e.g., Black Scholes), concordant employee records, and disclosure in audited accounts. The tribunal found the claim allowable within the revision window but emphasised documentary proof, valuation method and timing of liability as central to acceptability.

    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