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 29 "Deductions related to employee welfare" 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 29 Deductions related to employee welfare.

      Income-tax Act, 2025 [As Passed]

      At a Glance

      The documents are two versions of Clause/Section 29 dealing with deductions related to employee welfare in the Income-tax Bill/Act, 2025. They matter because they govern employer tax deductions for contributions to provident, pension, gratuity and related employee welfare funds and determine when employer- or employee-contributed amounts are deductible. A principal change appears in the treatment and interaction of provisions relating to gratuity provisions (sub-clause (d)) and the general prohibition on deductions for provisions (sub-section (2)). The effective date or decision date: "Income-tax Act, 2025 [As Passed]" indicates enactment, but the text contains no express effective date beyond being part of the Act. (If a detail is missing: Not stated in the document.)

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: Provisions are placed under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession" and are framed as Clause/Section 29 of the Income-tax Bill/Act, 2025. Coverage: deductions allowed to an assessee who is an employer when computing income chargeable u/s 26. The text sets out specific categories of deductible sums (contributions to recognised provident funds, approved superannuation funds, pension schemes u/s 124, approved gratuity funds under irrevocable trust, certain provisions relating to gratuity, and employee contributions credited to funds). The provision also cross-references section 2(49)(o) and section 37. Definitions or further explanations beyond these references are Not stated in the document.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      The provision delineates six categories in sub-section (1) of sums that an employer (assessee) may deduct while computing business income u/s 26:

      • (1)(a): Contributions to recognised provident funds or approved superannuation funds subject to prescribed limits for recognition/approval and conditions specified by the Board where contributions are not made annually as fixed amounts.
      • (1)(b): Contributions to a pension scheme referred to in section 124, limited to 14% of the employee's salary (salary here includes dearness allowance, if terms of employment so provide, but excludes other allowances and perquisites) for each employee in the tax year.
      • (1)(c): Contributions to an approved gratuity fund created by the assessee for exclusive benefit of employees under an irrevocable trust.
      • (1)(d): Irrespective of sub-section (2) (in the As Passed text), any provision made for making contribution towards an approved gratuity fund or for payment of any gratuity that has become payable during the tax year.
      • (1)(e): Employee contributions falling within section 2(49)(o) if credited to the employee's account in the relevant fund by the "due date"; "due date" is defined by reference to statutory, contractual or other obligations and the provisions of section 37 shall not be applied to determine the due date under this clause.

      Sub-section (2) provides a general bar on deductions for "provision made for the payment of gratuity to the employees on their retirement or termination for any reason" but - in the As Passed text - is expressly made subject to (1)(d). Sub-section (2)(b) forbids double deduction: if a deduction under (1)(d) has been allowed for a provision, no deduction is allowed on actual payments made from such provision.

      Interpretation

      The As Passed wording indicates a legislative intent to clarify the relationship between provisions for gratuity recognised as deductible and the general prohibition on deductions for provisions. The explicit phrase "irrespective of anything contained in sub-section (2)" in (1)(d), together with the rephrasing of (2)(a) as "Subject to the provisions of sub-section (1)(d)," indicates that amounts falling squarely within (1)(d)'s scope are intended to be deductible despite the otherwise general rule disallowing provisions for gratuity. The text also shows an intent to prevent double deduction by disallowing deduction on actual payments when a deduction for the provision was already allowed (sub-section (2)(b)).

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Carve-outs and conditions expressly stated in the text:

      • Sub-section (1)(a) is subject to prescribed limits for recognition/approval and Board-specified conditions where contributions are not fixed annually.
      • The 14% cap in (1)(b) on pension scheme contributions and the specification of what constitutes "salary" for that purpose (includes dearness allowance only if the terms of employment so provide; excludes other allowances and perquisites).
      • (1)(e)(ii) defines "due date" by reference to statutory or contractual obligations and excludes reliance on section 37 to determine due date.
      • Sub-section (2)(b) prevents deduction both at the time of allowing a provision under (1)(d) and again on actual payment from that provision.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: An employer credits employee contributions to the recognised provident fund on the date required by statute. Under (1)(e), such credited employee contributions are deductible for the employer provided the crediting is done by the defined "due date." (Details of the statutory due date or record-keeping requirements: Not stated in the document.)
      • Example 2: An employer establishes an approved gratuity fund under an irrevocable trust and makes a provision during the tax year to meet a gratuity payment that has already become payable during that tax year. Under (1)(d) (as enacted), that provision is deductible "irrespective of" the general bar in (2). If the employer later disburses amounts from that provision, sub-section (2)(b) prevents a second deduction on the actual payment.

      Interplay

      The provision expressly interacts with section 2(49)(o) (referred to in (1)(e)) and section 37 (referred to in the definition of "due date" under (1)(e)(ii), where section 37 shall not be applied for determining the due date). No other Rules/Notifications/Circulars are mentioned in the text. Any further interplay with other provisions of the Income-tax Act (for example, detailed rules for recognition of funds, or compliance requirements under labour laws) is Not stated in the document.

      Differences between the two versions and practical impact

      Identified textual differences and their practical consequences:

      • Wording of sub-clause (1)(a)/(b)/(c)/(e): Minor editorial differences - "paid by way of contribution towards" (As Passed) vs "contribution paid to" (Old Version).
        • Practical impact: None substantive stated in the document; the differences are stylistic only.
      • Sub-clause (1)(d): As Passed inserts the phrase "irrespective of anything contained in sub-section (2)," before describing the provision allowed (provision made for making contribution towards approved gratuity fund or payment of any gratuity that has become payable during the tax year). In the Old Version the clause appears without that introductory qualification.
      • Sub-section (2)(a): Wording change is significant. Old Version: "For the purposes of sub-section (1)(d), no deduction shall be allowed for any provision made for the payment of gratuity to the employees on their retirement or termination for any reason;" As Passed: "(a) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (1)(d), no deduction shall be allowed for any provision made for the payment of gratuity to the employees on their retirement or termination for any reason;"
      • Net practical impact(as shown by the text): In the Old Version there is textual tension - (1)(d) permits "any provision made for the purpose of making contribution towards approved gratuity fund or for the purpose of payment of any gratuity that has become payable during the tax year" while (2)(a) appears to say for the purposes of (1)(d) no deduction shall be allowed for provisions made for gratuity on retirement/termination. The As Passed text resolves that tension by expressly making (1)(d) operate "irrespective of anything contained in sub-section (2)" and then qualifying (2)(a) as "Subject to the provisions of sub-section (1)(d)". The effect in the statutory text is to prioritise (1)(d): provisions described in (1)(d) are allowable notwithstanding the general prohibition in (2)(a). Practically, this clarifies that certain provisions - contributions towards an approved gratuity fund and payment of gratuity that has become payable during the tax year - are deductible despite the general rule disallowing deductions for provisions for gratuity on retirement/termination, but the remainder of (2)(a)'s prohibition continues to apply where (1)(d) does not cover the specific provision.
      • Other parts (sub-section (2)(b), sub-section (3), and definitions of "due date" cross-referencing section 37) are materially the same in both texts.
        • Practical impact: No change stated in the document for these clauses.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas grounded in the text: Employers should ensure that contributions to recognised provident and approved superannuation funds comply with prescribed limits and Board-specified conditions where contributions are not fixed annually; failure to meet those conditions may jeopardise deductibility (prescribed limits and conditions: Not stated in the document).
      • For pension contributions u/s 124, the 14% ceiling and the specific construction of "salary" (inclusion of dearness allowance only if terms of employment so provide; exclusion of other allowances) create a compliance threshold; documents or employment terms evidencing inclusion of dearness allowance will be material (specific record requirements: Not stated in the document).
      • The As Passed clarification around (1)(d)/(2)(a) reduces ambiguity about whether provisions for gratuity may be deductible: certain provisions and payments that have become payable during the tax year fall within deductible categories despite the general prohibition-employers must track whether a deduction has already been taken on a provision to avoid double deduction on actual payment (sub-section (2)(b)).
      • Record-keeping/evidence: Employers should maintain documentation evidencing (i) recognition/approval status of funds, (ii) prescribed limits and Board conditions satisfaction, (iii) terms of employment showing inclusion/exclusion of dearness allowance, (iv) dates when employee contributions were credited (to establish the "due date"), and (v) accounting entries showing whether a deduction was taken on a provision versus on actual payment. (The specific form or period for retention of records: Not stated in the document.)

      Key Takeaways

      • Section/Clause 29 lists specific employer-related employee-welfare deductions permissible against business income u/s 26.
      • Main deductible categories: recognised provident funds/approved superannuation funds, pension scheme contributions (subject to 14%), approved gratuity funds under irrevocable trust, certain provisions for gratuity and credited employee contributions.
      • The As Passed wording expressly prioritises the deductible provisions in (1)(d) over the general prohibition in sub-section (2), resolving a textual conflict present in the Old Version.
      • Double deduction is prevented: if deduction is allowed for a provision under (1)(d), no deduction is allowed on actual payments from that provision (sub-section (2)(b)).
      • Definitions and procedural specifics (prescribed limits, Board-specified conditions, details for determining due date beyond the textual cross-reference) are not set out in the document and will require reference to rules or notifications not contained here.

      Full Text:

      Section 29 Deductions related to employee welfare.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax