Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 TMI Notes - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ----
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Maximum Marginal Rate and Surcharge for Discretionary Trusts: ITAT Special Bench Clarifies Slab-Base...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Classification of Quicklime under the Customs Tariff: CESTAT Bangalore's Reaffirmation of HSN-Based ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Reassessment Notices Post-Ashish Agarwal and TOLA: Limitation and Sanction u/ss 149 and ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Seizure, Provisional Release and Limitation: Supreme Court on the Interplay of Sections 110(2), 110A...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Prima Facie Adjustments v. Substantive Adjudication: Procedural Boundaries in Return Processing (CPC...
    Survey, Unaccounted Stock (Eye-Estimates) and the Limits of Section 130: Statutory Primacy of Sectio...
    Input Tax Credit Abuse (ITC Fraud) and Judicial Review: Delhi High Court on Natural Justice, RUDs an...
    Writ Jurisdiction and Statutory Appeal in GST Fraud Investigations: A Judicial Re-affirmation
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) Post-Amendment, Accumulated Income and the Sixth Year: Legal Interpretation, Procedura...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Form No.10B & Section 119(2)(b): Condonation of Delay in Tax Exemption Claims: Principles, Precedent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Regulatory Ambit of Import of Second-Hand Electronic Capital Goods: Classification, Exemption and Pr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 195, DTAAs and Software Licences: A Practical Framework for Withholding Tax
    Provisional Attachment under GST: Draconian Powers, Statutory Time-Bars and the Rule of Law: Interpr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 263 Revisited: Jurisdictional Boundaries Where AO Takes a Plausible View on 80G Claims
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional Release in Customs Law: Balancing Revenue Protection and Commercial Fairness - A Compara...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Conditional Re-export and Revenue Safeguards: Judicially Crafted Remedies in Customs Adjudication
    GST Limitation Regime vs Executive Notifications: Judicial Review of Time-Limit Notifications under ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) After Finance Act, 2022: Utilization of Accumulated Income - Deemed Income, Vesting an...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    When Can an ITAT Reopen a Decision? Distinguishing Prior Binding Precedent from Subsequent Case-Law
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment and Jurisdiction: Reconciling JAO Roles with NFAC u/ss 144B & 151A (JAO / FAO)
❯❯
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
    Discretionary trusts taxed at maximum marginal rate must have surcharge computed under slab and threshold rules, not automatically at top rate.
    For private discretionary trusts taxed at the maximum marginal rate under sections 164/167B, the term denotes the highest basic slab rate under the Finance Act, but surcharge on that tax must be computed according to the Finance Act's slab- and threshold-based surcharge provisions; if the trust's total income does not cross the statutory surcharge threshold, no surcharge is leviable despite basic tax being at the top slab rate.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Quicklime classification: impure lime falls under specific tariff heading, not high purity calcium oxide, per HSN purity standard.
    The imported material, chemically tested as impure calcium oxide (about 92.2% CaO with mineral impurities), is classifiable under Heading 2522 10 00 as Quicklime. Chapter Note 1 to Chapter 25 must be read contextually and does not disqualify quicklime from Chapter 25 where the tariff text and HSN Explanatory Notes expressly contemplate calcined quicklime. Heading 2825 is confined to chemically pure calcium oxide (approximately 98% CaO) and its residuary sub-heading cannot displace the specific Heading 2522 unless that purity threshold and absence of impurities are met.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reassessment notices: surviving-time computation under COVID-era relief and new limitation rules renders late notices time-barred.
    The court held that in transitional reassessment cases the appropriate sanctioning authority is determined by when the original three-year expiry fell within the COVID-era relief window, so approval by the ordinarily specified authority for within-three-year cases suffices; limitation is governed by a two-step surviving-time computation measured from the original notice as of the relief-window terminal date, excluding stayed periods and the time allowed to reply, and any later notice issued beyond that surviving time is time-barred under the substituted limitation regime read with the time-relief statute and the legal-fiction continuity.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Seizure of goods: six month statutory limit for issuing show cause notice is mandatory despite provisional release.
    The six month limit in Section 110(2) for issuing a show cause notice after seizure under Section 110(1) is mandatory; only a single six month extension under the first proviso is permissible. Provisional release under Section 110A does not suspend, extend or neutralise that time bar. The 2018 second proviso making the six month rule inapplicable where provisional release is ordered is a substantive change and does not validate pre amendment seizures prolonged without notice.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Prima facie adjustments cannot decide debatable legal claims in return processing; contested deductions require scrutiny procedures.
    When a claimed deduction depends on timely deposit of employee welfare contributions and the legal question is debatable or pending higher adjudication, summary processing adjustments cannot be used to resolve the dispute; such matters require scrutiny or reassessment procedures and the validity of any processing-stage action must be judged by the law and facts existing at the time of processing.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Survey discovered unaccounted stock must be assessed under sections 35(6) and 73/74, not via section 130.
    Tax liability for unaccounted goods found in a survey must be determined under section 35(6) read with sections 73/74 of the GST Act; section 130 cannot be used to quantify tax or levy penalty in such cases. The statutory cross reference to sections 73/74 requires adherence to their procedural safeguards, and quantification based solely on eye estimates during survey is insufficient without proper weighment or verification.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit fraud: writ relief limited where appeals exist; hearings and raw RUDs generally suffice absent prejudice.
    The High Court held that writ jurisdiction must be exercised with restraint in complex ITC fraud matters appealable under Section 107; at least one personal hearing and provision of RUDs as collected by the Department generally suffice absent demonstrable prejudice; detailed allocation of penal liability under Sections 73/74/75(13)/122 requires adjudicatory or appellate factfinding and cannot be resolved in writ proceedings.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Writ jurisdiction limited where statutory appeal exists for fact intensive GST fraud investigations; appellate forum preferred for evidentiary disputes.
    The High Court reaffirmed that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is generally inappropriate where a statutory appeal exists for fact intensive GST investigations alleging fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit through fake invoices. Courts should confine review to jurisdictional defects or breaches of natural justice; detailed evidentiary disputes involving voluminous Relied Upon Documents, recorded statements and transaction chains are better resolved by the specialised appellate forum, which should hear appeals on merits and avoid dismissing on limitation grounds where appropriate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Prospectivity of tax amendments: changes to accumulation rules apply from their effective date, not to prior accruals.
    Interpretation of section 11(3) concludes that, under the pre-amendment text, accumulated charitable funds could be applied in the year immediately following the five-year accumulation period; the 2022/2023 amendment removing that year was treated as prospective under the presumption against retrospective tax imposition. Separately, corrections by the Centralised Processing Centre under section 143(1) are confined to mechanistic errors and should not resolve debatable substantive questions of statutory interpretation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay in tax exemption claims should favor substantive rights over mere technical filing defects when bona fide.
    Equitable application of the Condonation Power requires authorities to admit late Form No.10B filings when short delays or credible explanations would otherwise strip claimants of substantive exemption rights; procedural defects such as digital-signature technicalities must be tested against documentary e-filing evidence and substantial compliance, while administrative safeguards permit subsequent verification of the audit report.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Imported second hand MFDs meeting HSE technical criteria can be exempt from BIS registration and obtain conditional provisional release.
    Where importers produce prima facie evidence that imported second hand MFDs meet the Highly Specialized Equipment (HSE) criteria (limited units per model and physical thresholds such as weight >80 kg), those devices are exempt from compulsory BIS registration under the CRO and fall within the FTP residuary category for second hand capital goods; accordingly, provisional release may be granted on conditions (bond/guarantee and document verification) without prejudice to final adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Royalty characterisation for software determines withholding-non exclusive copies/licenses generally not subject to TDS unless income is chargeable.
    Payments for off the shelf/shrink wrapped software or hardware embedded software that constitute a resale of a copyrighted article or a grant of a non exclusive, restricted licence for internal use do not ordinarily constitute royalty under section 9(1)(vi) or typical DTAA provisions; withholding under section 195 arises only where the non resident's receipts are chargeable to tax in India (e.g., due to a PE or transfer of substantive copyright rights), and retrospective domestic amendments cannot be used to impose past withholding obligations on payors who lacked notice of the expanded definition.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional attachment limits: fixed statutory expiry prevents re-issuance of lapsed attachment orders on same property.
    A provisional attachment under the CGST scheme automatically ceases on expiry of the statutory time limit; once it has lapsed by operation of law, tax authorities have no power to re issue or renew a fresh provisional attachment over the same property on substantially the same grounds, and any such fresh order is void. Procedural rules or executive instructions cannot be used to circumvent this statutory safeguard and must be aligned with the primary legislation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisional jurisdiction cannot overturn a plausible assessment on charitable deductions where donation conditions are met.
    Tribunals held that Explanation 2 limiting CSR expenditure as a business deduction operates within the business income chapter and does not ipso facto bar claims under the donations regime; specific statutory exceptions indicate Parliament's choice to restrict only certain items. A mandatory CSR outlay does not automatically negate donation character where there is no material return, provided donee approval and documentary evidence are established. On revisional power, section 263 cannot be invoked to overturn an assessing officer's tenable, precedent backed view where enquiries were made; revision is justified only if the AO's conclusion is legally untenable or there was no inquiry.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional release of seized imports permitted subject to proportionate security, favouring bonds over bank guarantees before adjudication.
    Provisional release under Section 110 is permitted subject to proportionate protections: payment of duties as self-assessed; payment of a substantive portion (commonly fifty percent) of any departmental differential; and execution of enforceable bonds for the balance. Bank guarantees or cash security for speculative fines prior to adjudication are often disproportionate and may be replaced by bonds, though deliberate mis-declaration, concealment or prohibited imports justify stricter protective measures.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Conditional re-export of detained imports permitted when revenue is secured by enforceable financial guarantees and timelines.
    Courts may permit re-export of detained imports where the anticipated departmental remedy is monetary, provided the importer furnishes enforceable financial safeguards-typically a bond quantifying revenue exposure and a bank guarantee for a calibrated portion of the redetermined value-and complies with prescribed timelines; such orders are without prejudice to the Department's right to complete investigations, adjudicate, assess differential duties, and impose penalties.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Force majeure causation in GST limitation: proximate cause and mandatory council recommendation govern valid time limit extensions.
    Section 168A empowers executive modification of GST limitation periods but operates as delegated legislation subject to strict construction: valid exercise requires (i) a qualifying force majeure event, (ii) inability to complete prescribed actions, and (iii) proximate causation by that event; GST Council recommendation is a mandatory precondition and GIC substitution or post-facto ratification does not cure statutory defect.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Accumulated trust income: Tribunal rulings treat the 2022 amendment as prospective, preserving the prior six year utilisation window.
    Two Tribunal benches held that the Finance Act, 2022 amendment to the accumulation provision is prospective; accumulations made before 1 April 2022 remain governed by the prior law including the additional one year grace, and utilisation within that six year window cannot be taxed for AY 2023 24. The Tribunals relied on the presumption against retrospectivity, the Finance Bill memorandum stating an effective date of 1 April 2023, and fairness doctrines to conclude Parliament did not intend to curtail vested rights retroactively.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tribunal recall power limited: later judicial overruling alone cannot reopen finalized tax orders under review rules.
    The tribunal's power to amend is limited to rectifying a mistake apparent from the record existing at the time of the original order or to taking into account contemporaneous binding precedent not placed before it; a subsequent overruling or clarification by a superior court cannot alone justify recall, in light of the explanatory bar in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC and related authorities.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Concurrent jurisdiction between JAO and faceless authorities affirmed; JAO may initiate reassessment followed by faceless assessment.
    The faceless scheme and RMS produce information that may be surfaced to the JAO, permitting the JAO to conduct the pre-notice inquiry and form satisfaction to issue a notice initiating reassessment; thereafter records may be transmitted for faceless assessment via automated allocation, embodying a two-stage model that preserves both JAO initiation authority and central faceless assessment.

    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