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 28 "Rent, rates, taxes, repairs and insurance" between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

      21 August, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Section 28 Rent, rates, taxes, repairs and insurance.

      Income-tax Act, 2025 [As Passed]

      At a Glance

      Document considered: Clause 28 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) titled "Rent, rates, taxes, repairs and insurance." It sets out categories of deductible expenditures in computing profits and gains of business or profession. It matters to taxpayers carrying on business or profession, lessors/tenants and tax authorities. Effective date or decision date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hook: Clause 28 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 dealing with "Profits and gains of business or profession." Scope: provides that specified amounts shall be allowed as deduction in respect of premises, machinery, plant or furniture "wholly and exclusively" used for business or profession. The clause enumerates categories (insurance premium, land revenue/local rates/municipal taxes, rent when tenant, current repairs when occupied otherwise than as a tenant, and cost of repairs when premises occupied by the assessee as a tenant). Definitions or further explanations: Not stated in the document.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      The provision covers deductions in computing business/professional profits for expenses in respect of premises, machinery, plant or furniture that are "wholly and exclusively" used for business/profession. Enumerated deductible items are:

      • (a) any premium paid in respect of insurance against risk of damage or destruction of the assets;
      • (b) land revenue, local rates or municipal taxes paid;
      • (c) rent paid where the premises are occupied by the assessee as a tenant;
      • (d) amount paid on account of current repairs, not being capital expenditure, when premises are occupied otherwise than as a tenant;
      • (e) cost of repairs, not being capital expenditure, when the premises are occupied by the assessee as a tenant.

      Subsection (2) provides that where the asset is partly used or not wholly and exclusively used for business/profession, deduction under subsection (1) shall be restricted to a fair proportionate part as determined by the Assessing Officer, having regard to usage for business/profession.

      Interpretation

      The text conditions deductions on assets being "wholly and exclusively" used for business/profession; that phrase operates as a threshold requirement. The enumeration is restrictive: only specified categories qualify. The use of the phrase "not being capital expenditure" signals an intention to exclude capital improvements from deduction, limiting allowance to current/repair-type expenditure. The mechanism in subsection (2) entrusts apportionment to the Assessing Officer, implying case-by-case factual determination of proportionate business use.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      No express provisos, thresholds, or procedural conditions appear in Clause 28 beyond the "wholly and exclusively" condition and the exclusion of capital expenditure. Specific exceptions (e.g., measuring apportionment methods, documentation requirements) are Not stated in the document.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A manufacturing firm uses a factory building solely for manufacturing; premium paid for insurance on the building would be deductible under clause (a) because the premises are wholly and exclusively used for business.
      • Example 2: A proprietor runs a business from part of a building and uses part for private residence. Only a fair proportionate part of municipal taxes and repairs, as determined by the Assessing Officer, would be deductible under subsection (2).
      • Example 3: A tenant pays rent for business premises; rent paid is deductible under clause (c) provided the premises are wholly and exclusively used for business.

      Interplay

      Interaction with other statutory provisions, Rules, Notifications or Circulars is Not stated in the document. The clause's reference to determination by the Assessing Officer suggests interaction with assessment procedures under the Income-tax Code, but specific cross-references are Not stated in the document.

      Differences between Section 28 of Income-tax Act, 2025 [As Passed] and Clause 28 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version

      • Scope of use: The Old Version (Clause 28) conditions deductions on premises, machinery, plant or furniture being "wholly and exclusively" used for the purposes of business or profession. The Passed Act (Section 28) omits "wholly and exclusively" and allows deductions in respect of such assets "used for the purposes of the business or profession," thereby broadening applicability.
      • Repairs to machinery/plant/furniture: The Passed Act adds a new sub-clause (f) expressly permitting deduction for "current repairs to machinery, plant or furniture, not being in the nature of capital expenditure." The Old Version contains no equivalent clause.
      • Tenant repairs: The Old Version's clause (e) refers to "cost of repairs, not being capital expenditure, when the premises occupied by the premises occupied by the assessee as a tenant" (contains a drafting repetition). The Passed Act's clause (e) clarifies that the deduction applies where the premises are occupied by the assessee as a tenant and "where he has undertaken to bear the cost of repairs to the premises." Thus the Passed Act adds an explicit requirement that the tenant has undertaken responsibility for repairs.
      • Wording on capital expenditure: The Old Version uses the phrase "not being capital expenditure"; the Passed Act uses "not being in the nature of capital expenditure." This is a drafting refinement but may have interpretive significance.
      • Assessing Officer determination: Both versions retain subsection (2) restricting deduction to a fair proportionate part where assets are partly used or not wholly and exclusively used; text is substantially the same though the Old Version's trigger language references "wholly and exclusively" use while the Passed Act's trigger is broader given the removal of that phrase in subsection (1).
      • Minor drafting: The Old Version appears to contain a typographical repetition in clause (e). The Passed Act corrects and expands the drafting.

      Practical impact of each change

      • Removal of "wholly and exclusively": Broadens entitlement to deductions where assets are partly used for business/profession - potentially increasing allowable deductions but subject to apportionment under subsection (2).
      • Addition of repairs to plant/machinery/furniture: Clarifies and expressly allows current repair deductions for tangible assets beyond premises - likely reduces disputes where such repairs were previously not expressly listed.
      • Tenant repair undertaking requirement: Tightens the conditions for a tenant's deduction for repairs by requiring an undertaking to bear repair costs - may limit deductions where no express undertaking exists.
      • Drafting refinement ("in the nature of"): May affect interpretation in borderline cases by focusing on the character of expenditure, rather than the technical label "capital expenditure."
      • Subsection (2) retained: Apportionment by the Assessing Officer remains the mechanism to deal with mixed-use assets; practical disputes may shift from entitlement to apportionment methodology.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Taxpayers must establish that assets are "wholly and exclusively" used for business or profession to claim full deductions. Where use is mixed, subsection (2) exposes taxpayers to assessment-time apportionment. The exclusion of capital expenditure demands careful classification of spending as current repair versus capital improvement to avoid disallowance.
      • Record-keeping/evidence points: Although the clause does not prescribe records, the textual requirements imply that taxpayers should retain evidence of exclusive business use (floor plans, usage logs), invoices and nature-of-expenditure documentation to substantiate repairs as current (versus capital). Where a tenant seeks deduction for repairs, documentation of tenancy terms and any undertaking to bear repairs is likely to be material-however, the Bill does not state precise documentary requirements.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 28 enumerates limited categories of deductible expenses relating to premises, machinery, plant and furniture for business/profession.
      • Full deduction in the Old Version is conditioned on assets being "wholly and exclusively" used for business or profession.
      • Capital expenditure is excluded; only current repairs or recurring costs qualify under the repair heads.
      • Subsection (2) permits apportionment for mixed-use assets by the Assessing Officer on a fair proportionate basis.
      • The Bill does not set out procedural, evidentiary or measurement standards; those are Not stated in the document.
      • Ambiguities likely to arise concern classification of expenditure (current v. capital), proving "wholly and exclusively" use, and apportionment methodology.
      • Specific operational details (effective date, transitional rules, forms or rulings) are Not stated in the document.

      Full Text:

      Section 28 Rent, rates, taxes, repairs and insurance.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax