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 26 "Income under head Profits and gains of business or profession" between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

      20 August, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Section 26 Income under head "Profits and gains of business or profession".

      Income-tax Act, 2025 [As Passed]

      At a Glance

      These documents present the enacted Section 26 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 ["As Passed"] (Document 1) and an earlier draft of Clause 26 in the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version (Document 2). Both provisions charge income under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession" and set out an inclusive list of items treated as business/professional income. The changes between the two texts are largely phrasing and cross-reference adjustments, with a few substantive drafting shifts that may affect the scope of recapture and the cross-referenced deduction regime. Affected parties include taxpayers carrying on business or profession, partners and firms, and the tax department; effective date or commencement is Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: both texts are presented as Clause/Section 26 under the Income Tax Bill/Act, 2025 and fall under the Part D heading "Profits and gains of business or profession". The clause(s) seek to define income chargeable under that head and provide an inclusive list of items to be regarded as such income. The texts contain internal cross-references to other provisions - e.g., section 35(e), section 35AD of the Income-tax Act, 1961, section 46 and in the older draft a reference to "Chapter IV-D". Definitions beyond the inclusive list are Not stated in the document. The documents do not state commencement/notification details.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Both versions establish that income from any business or profession carried on during the tax year is chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession". Each provides an inclusive list (sub-section (2)) covering: profits/gains of business or profession; compensation/payments on termination/modification of management/agency/contract; compensation for vesting management in Government; income of trade/professional associations for services to members; profits on sale of licences or export incentives; value of benefits/perquisites from business/profession; partner remuneration/amounts from firm; sums for not carrying out business activity or for not sharing know-how/intangible rights; Keyman insurance proceeds; fair market value of inventory when converted/treated as capital asset; and specific recapture where a capital asset (other than land/goodwill/financial instrument) is demolished/destroyed/discarded/transferred and its whole expenditure was allowed as a deduction under specified provisions.

      Interpretation

      The texts adopt an inclusive definition approach: items listed are expressly brought into business/professional income. The language used (e.g., "shall include") indicates a non-exhaustive list as typical in tax charging provisions. The enacted text shifts certain cross-references and expands the recapture reference to other statutory provisions (see below). Legislative intent as an overarching aim is to capture receipts related to business/professional activity and to provide recapture rules where capital allowances/deductions have been previously claimed - explicit legislative intent beyond the text is Not stated in the document.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      The provision contains specific carve-outs in sub-clause (h)(i)(A) and (B) excluding (A) sums received on transfer of rights chargeable under the head "Capital gains" and (B) compensation from the Montreal Protocol multilateral fund under terms agreed with Government of India. Sub-section (4) excludes rental income from letting of residential house by the owner from this head and directs that such income be charged under "Income from house property". Other general exceptions or thresholds are Not stated in the document.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A partner receives salary/commission from the firm. The payment is included under clause (g) and is to be treated in accordance with the extent allowed under the deduction cross-reference (Document 1: "section 35(e)"; Document 2: "Chapter IV-D").
      • Example 2: A company sells an import licence and realises a profit on sale; this profit is included under clause (e) as business income.
      • Example 3: Machinery (a capital asset other than land/goodwill/financial instrument) on which the whole expenditure was allowed under the cited deduction provision is demolished and some sum is received; clause (k) brings the receipt into business income (but the governing deduction reference differs between the texts).

      Interplay

      Both variants cross-refer to other provisions for deductions and for recapture. The enacted text explicitly references section 35(e) and u/s 35AD of the Income-tax Act, 1961 alongside section 46 of the 2025 Act for recapture scenarios; the earlier draft references "Chapter IV-D" for partner remuneration and refers only to section 46 for recapture. Any interplay with Rules, Notifications or Circulars is Not stated in the document.

      Differences Between Documents and Practical Impact

      • Opening paragraph/sub-section (1) wording: Old draft states "The income from any business or profession carried on by the assessee at any time during the tax year shall be chargeable...". Enacted version states "The incomes referred to in sub-section (2) shall be chargeable...".
        • Practical impact: drafting shift narrows the immediate charging phrase to the items enumerated in sub-section (2), while the prior draft framed the charge as broader "income from any business or profession". The practical interpretive difference is limited because both texts ultimately list the items; the enacted wording may emphasise the inclusive list as the operative charge. The precise legal effect is contingent on interpretive practice and is Not stated in the document.
      • Clause (e): Old text uses "input licence"; enacted text uses "import licence".
        • Practical impact: this is a material textual difference. If "input licence" in the old draft was unintended or a drafting error, the enacted text clarifies that profits on sale of import licences are included. The documents do not state whether "input licence" was an error or intended; therefore, the practical effect is that the enacted text clearly captures profits on sale of import licences and similar export incentives. Any consequences for licences termed "input licence" are Not stated in the document.
      • Clause (g) - cross-reference for partner payments: Old draft refers to deduction "under Chapter IV-D" as a deduction in computing the firm's income; enacted text refers to "section 35(e) as a deduction in computing the income of the firm".
        • Practical impact: this is a substantive cross-reference change which may alter how partner payments are assessed against firm deductions. Whether section 35(e) reproduces, narrows or expands the former Chapter IV-D rules is Not stated in the document; stakeholders must compare the referenced provisions to determine precise tax treatment and availment of deductions.
      • Clause (h)(ii) - scope of excluded consideration verbiage: Old draft ends with "information or technical know-how likely to assist..." whereas enacted text reads "information or technique likely to assist...".
        • Practical impact: marginal wording change; potential interpretive nuance between "technical know-how" and "information or technique" may slightly broaden or shift the class of protected items, but the documents provide no legislative clarification on intent.
      • Clause (j) - manner of valuation: Old draft uses "determined in the manner, as prescribed"; enacted text uses "determined in the manner, as may be prescribed".
        • Practical impact: enacted wording explicitly contemplates rule-making power ("may be prescribed"), but both formulations are typically used to enable subordinate legislation; the practical change is minimal and procedural - specific rules are Not stated in the document.
      • Clause (k)(ii) - recapture reference: Old draft brought sums into business income where whole of the expenditure had been allowed as a deduction "u/s 46". Enacted text broadens the reference to "u/s 35AD of the Income-tax Act, 1961 or section 46 of this Act."
        • Practical impact: the enacted version expressly captures cases where capital asset expenditure was allowed u/s 35AD (1961 Act) in addition to section 46 of the 2025 Act, thereby broadening recapture to assets benefiting from section 35AD allowances. This is a substantive expansion of recapture scope; however, the precise operation depends on the text of section 35AD and section 46, which are Not stated in the document.
      • General drafting and punctuation differences: There are minor editorial and structural differences (e.g., "by whatever name called" vs "by whatever named called", placement of commas and hyphens).
        • Practical impact: mostly stylistic, though consistent drafting reduces interpretive ambiguity.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Taxpayers should note the broadened recapture reference (inclusion of u/s 35AD of the Income-tax Act, 1961) - assets whose costs were wholly allowed under such provisions may generate business income upon demolition/destruction/discard/transfer. Firms and partners must review the applicable deduction cross-reference (section 35(e) in enacted text) when accounting for partner remuneration and when determining firm taxable income. The documents do not provide procedural guidance or transitional rules; transitional treatment is Not stated in the document.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: Where receipts arise from termination/modification of management/agency/contract, sale of licences, non-competition agreements, or Keyman insurance proceeds, taxpayers should retain contracts, calculation workings, valuations (for fair market value of inventory converted to capital asset), details of allowances claimed u/s 35AD or section 46, and firm resolution/partnership deeds evidencing partner payments - the document does not prescribe specific records but the inclusive list implies evidentiary needs relevant to these items.

      Key Takeaways

      • Both texts adopt an inclusive list of items treated as income from business or profession; enacted text rephrases the charging language to focus on the items enumerated in sub-section (2).
      • Enacted text clarifies "import licence" (instead of "input licence" in draft), which clarifies inclusion of profits on sale of import licences/export incentives.
      • Cross-reference for partner remuneration shifted from "Chapter IV-D" (draft) to "section 35(e)" (enacted), which may affect deduction mechanics - compare the referenced provisions to determine impact.
      • Recapture scope expanded in the enacted text to include cases where whole expenditure was allowed u/s 35AD of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in addition to section 46 - potentially broader taxability on demolition/destruction/discard/transfer of certain capital assets.
      • Several wording and drafting adjustments are editorial in nature; where substantive differences exist, the documents do not supply the surrounding provision texts or legislative history to resolve interpretive issues.

      Full Text:

      Section 26 Income under head "Profits and gains of business or profession".

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax