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
    Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS to the Government
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    A Landmark Judgment on Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS ...
    A Case of Coerced Input Tax Credit Reversal - GST recovery during search and seizure proceedings.
    Manner of compliance of conditions of pre-deposit - Debit of amount from electronic credit ledger (E...
    The need for clarity and concrete reasons in the cancellation of GST registrations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of reopening of assessment - need for a direct link between the portal's information and th...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Application of provisions of section 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional release of imported goods (apples) - The dispute centers on the valuation of the import...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Applicability of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of expenses - need for tax authorities to have a practical understanding of the nature ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of the assessee's business expenditure claims related to the purchase of sugarcane from...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Additions made u/s 69 and Section 56 in the absence of direct incriminating evidence linking the ass...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Whether penalty is to be imposed when the appellant has accepted the classification and paid the ent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Liability for payment of customs duty on sale of excess liquor from the duty-free shop
    Case LawsCustoms
    Demand of customs duty beyond normal period of limitation on the ground of change in classification ...
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Stringent approach towards ensuring compliance with auditing standards - importance of auditors' res...
    Whether the appellant's claim can be classified as a Financial Debt or Operational Debt under the In...
    Scope of Approval of resolution plan - Allegations of undervaluation of the Corporate Debtor's asset...
    Denial of Input Tax Credit since the GST registration of the Supplier of Goods has been Cancelled wi...
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) is a vested right or concession - Can government impose conditions or restric...
❯❯
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
    TDS credit entitlement affirmed: deductee entitled to credit despite deductor's non-deposit, preventing indirect recovery.
    Credit for tax deducted at source on interest payments is to be treated as tax paid on the deductee's behalf and does not depend on the deductor's remittance; statutory protections against indirect recovery prevent the revenue from seeking the same tax from the deductee when the deductor fails to deposit the deducted amount, and the deposit requirement in the applicable provisions does not negate the deductee's entitlement to such credit.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tax credit for TDS: deductee entitled to credit even if deductor failed to deposit the retained tax with government.
    The Court treats amounts retained by a deductor as remaining tax and concludes the statutory credit mechanism for tax deducted at source does not condition a deductee's entitlement on the deductor having deposited the retained amount with the government, thereby barring indirect recovery or adjustment against the deductee where tax has been deducted at source.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Coercive tax collection prohibited; forced reversal of input tax credit during search deemed impermissible, with investigatory remedies preserved.
    Dispute involved a search under Section 67 and an alleged coerced reversal of Input Tax Credit from the petitioner's Electronic Credit Ledger for supplies from a supplier with retrospectively cancelled registration; the court found such coercive recovery during search impermissible and directed restoration of the ITC while preserving the department's power to investigate and, if ineligible or fraudulent ITC is found, pass appropriate protective orders.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Pre-deposit payment method: Electronic credit ledger debit does not satisfy pre-deposit; cash ledger payment required for appeals.
    Pre-deposit for appeals under the CGST/BGST regime must be paid from the cash ledger; debit from the electronic credit ledger does not satisfy the statutory pre-deposit requirement. A revenue circular restricting ECRL use to certain output tax payments and excluding reverse charge, interest, penalties, fees, and similar amounts supports that ECRL cannot be used for pre-deposit. The court emphasized the statutory payment scheme and strict appeal filing timelines, rejecting arguments that ECRL debit could substitute for cash ledger payment.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Requirement of clear reasons in GST cancellation: retrospective deregistration must be reasoned and consider input tax credit effects.
    Cancellation of GST registration must be supported by clear reasons and concrete factual findings in show cause notices and cancellation orders; labels that a registration is "liable to be cancelled" without specifying dues or factual basis constitute mechanical action. Retrospective cancellation cannot be applied routinely; authorities must follow statutory procedure, assess causes for non-filing, consider exceptional disruptions to business operations, and account for the impact on input tax credit before fixing an effective date of cancellation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Use of portal data: digital information needs a direct evidential link before reopening income tax assessments.
    Reopening assessments requires a direct evidential link between portal-derived information and the income alleged to have escaped assessment; portal data alone is insufficient without documentary support for transactions or gifts, and a show cause notice must provide adequate particulars and reflect proper consideration of the taxpayer's response before reassessment proceeds.
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Show AI Summary
    Non retrospective application of punitive benami provisions affirmed, limiting enforcement to post amendment transactions.
    Application of Section 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 concerns whether punitive provisions enacted in 2016 apply to transactions predating the amendment. The Appellate Tribunal relied on Supreme Court precedent that such punitive provisions must be applied prospectively, and the High Court emphasized adherence to that interpretation while allowing parties to pursue further remedies pending the Supreme Court review.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional release of perishable imports allowed pending valuation, subject to provisional assessment and bond to protect revenue interests.
    The dispute concerns provisional release of perishable imported apples amid a valuation contest tied to a stayed minimum import price notification. The instrument requires provisional assessment of the Bill of Entry within a brief timeframe and permits conditional provisional release upon the importer furnishing a bond and meeting terms set by customs, thereby reconciling the protection of revenue interests with the practical need to avoid loss to perishable consignments pending final resolution of the notification's applicability.
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Show AI Summary
    Prospective application of punitive benami amendment upheld, limiting reach to post-enactment transactions and preserving pre-enactment protections.
    The Madras High Court affirmed that the enhanced punitive provision introduced by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 is substantive and applies prospectively; it endorsed the Tribunal's reliance on the Supreme Court's Ganapati Dealcom decision, treated a pending Supreme Court review petition as not displacing that precedent, and disposed of the appeals while allowing further proceedings consistent with prospectivity and prior constitutional findings.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Disallowance of expenses must rest on specific documentation defects, not on blanket percentage adjustments.
    Disallowance of business expenses on a summary or estimate basis requires specific, pointed deficiencies and cannot rest on generalized conclusions about excessiveness; in businesses with routine small transactions, tax authorities must examine the nature of operations and identify particular defects in documentation before applying blanket percentage disallowances.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Statutory Minimum Price interpretation: excess cane payments treated as appropriation of profits, not deductible business expense.
    The core issue is whether payments for sugarcane in excess of the Statutory Minimum Price (SMP) are deductible business expenditures or constitute an appropriation of profits. The Assessing Officer relied on standard accounting practice requiring provisions for liabilities at year end and treated post closing excess payments as distributions of operational surplus. The appellate view upheld that cooperative status does not alter the tax analysis and that payments beyond the SMP do not qualify as allowable business expenses absent proper provisioning within the accounting period.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Direct incriminating evidence requirement: third party search materials alone cannot sustain unexplained investment additions.
    Additions alleged as unexplained investments and undisclosed interest income based on third party search materials require a demonstrable direct nexus between those seized records and the assessee; absent such direct incriminating evidence, reliance on third party statements or documents is insufficient. Procedural safeguards and transactional indicia-such as cross examination opportunities, banking records, documentary support, and TDS-reduce the probative value of seized material when direct linkage is lacking.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty under Section 114A: no justification where importer accepted correct classification and paid differential duty before notice.
    Issue: imposition of a penalty for alleged suppression when the importer accepted correct tariff classification and paid the differential duty with interest before issuance of a show cause notice. The importer attributed the earlier misclassification to an agent error and denied intent to evade duty. The authority observed the accurate product description, admission of correct classification and prompt payment, concluded absence of suppression of facts and determined that the statutory penalty provision was not justified on these facts.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Liability under Section 72: duty rests with duty-free shop licence-holder when trade facility conditions are breached.
    Duty arises where a duty-free shop licence-holder breaches voucher and recordkeeping conditions under the trade facility; the licence-holder bears responsibility for payment of duty and interest when procedural requirements are violated, while penalty depends on culpability and may be disallowed where no intent to evade duty is established and customs were aware of the transactions.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Extended limitation in customs demands inapplicable where no suppression, limiting reassessment for CVD on undeclared MRP entries.
    Reassessment and CVD demand arose from a post-clearance change in classification and retrospective reliance on MRP for past entries; the tribunal held that items described were essential refrigeration parts rather than accessories, that MRP-based reassessment requires clear factual basis, and that the Extended Period of Limitation is inapplicable where no suppression is established, although penalty issues may still be considered where omissions occur.
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Auditor responsibility reinforced: regulatory findings against audit failures stress strict adherence to auditing standards and sanctions.
    NFRA found a statutory auditor guilty of professional misconduct for failures to comply with Standards on Auditing, including inadequate procedures to verify revenue, lack of physical inventory verification, insufficient going concern assessment, deficient materiality application, and inadequate communication with Those Charged with Governance, and applied regulatory sanctions to reinforce auditor responsibilities in preserving financial reporting integrity.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Operational debt classification confirmed for supplier's claim based on the transaction's nature under the insolvency framework.
    Whether a claim from a supply arrangement is a Financial Debt or an Operational Debt depends on the transaction's substantive character. The tribunal examined contractual terms-penalties for non-delivery, interest, and security cheques-and applied precedents on the financial-versus-operational distinction. It characterised the supplier's claim, filed under Section 9, as arising from the supply of goods and therefore as an operational debt, sustaining the Resolution Professional's and Adjudicating Authority's classification.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Commercial wisdom of committee of creditors governs resolution plan approval, limiting valuation and standing challenges by promoters.
    Exclusion of the creditor was non irregular as no claim was filed; undervaluation allegations were rejected since opportunities to raise them during the CIRP were not used; the resolution plan satisfied Committee approval requirements and reflected the Committee's commercial wisdom; and a suspended director/promoter lacked standing to challenge the approved plan, underscoring limited judicial interference post approval.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input tax credit denial over supplier deregistration; remanded for document verification and fresh adjudication to determine genuineness.
    Denial of Input Tax Credit was challenged where the supplier's registration was retrospectively cancelled; the petitioner paid through bank and the supplier appeared on records at the time. The High Court remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, directing the appellate authority to reconsider the petitioner's documentary evidence, hold a hearing, and pass a reasoned order verifying genuineness and timing of transactions; if purchases are genuine and occurred prior to cancellation, ITC is to be considered per precedent.
    Act RulesGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit as legislative concession: entitlement subject to statutory conditions, but retrospective deprivation of vested accruals is vulnerable.
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) is a legislative concession, not a vested right, so the legislature may lawfully prescribe eligibility conditions and procedural limits which taxpayers must strictly satisfy; however, retrospective amendments that destroy or diminish an already accrued entitlement are susceptible to challenge and have been treated as impermissible when they impair rights that vested before the amendment.

    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