Loading...

⚠ ✕
❮ 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 characters 0/2000
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 ✕
🔎 Filters / Advanced Search ❯
TEXT

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.
Relevance Default Date
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Retrospective Amendments and the Doctrine of Vested Rights: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Upholding Equality: HC Strikes Down Discriminatory Circular on Charitable Trust Approvals
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Judicial Review of Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) Orders: Navigating the Boundaries
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Assessee's Lackadaisical Conduct Leads to Dismissal of Income Tax Appeal
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Appeal Scheme: Lessons from the Judgement on Delayed Filing and Deduction u/...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Unraveling the Maze of Round-Tripping: The Doctrine of "Source of Source" in Share Capital Transacti...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Upholding the Transfer of Assessment Proceedings u/s 127: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Share Premium Addition u/s 68: Demystifying Share Premium Transactions
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Intricacies of Income Tax Penalty u/s 271(1)(c): Fairness in Tax Administration
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Scope and Limitations under Income Tax Act
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of Search and Seizure Assessments: Unraveling the Intricacies of Section...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interpreting Section 80G Provisions: ITAT's Stance on Charitable Institution Registration
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interpreting the Scope and Limits of Sections 153A and 153C: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Section 153C and the Necessity of AO's Satisfaction: A Detailed Judicial Analysis
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Royalty or Business Income? High Court Clarifies Taxation of Remittances against Software Purchase
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Complexities
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Faceless Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment: Validity of Notice Issued by the Jurisdictional A...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Court Upholds Deduction for Operational Hotel under Section 35AD Despite Administrative Delays
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Landmark Ruling: Leasing Businesses Entitled to Depreciation Benefits
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Court Decision on Convertible Debentures Expenses : Revenue or Capital Expenditure?
❮
❯
❯❯
Maximize Maximize Maximize
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 Summaries Hide All Summaries
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Vested rights preserved against retrospective tax amendments; filings made before enactment remain effective for settlement consideration.
The court addressed whether a retrospective Finance Act amendment prohibiting settlement applications from a specified date could divest a taxpayer who filed earlier of its vested right to have the application considered. It held that retrospective legislation cannot take away rights already accrued by actions completed before enactment unless clearly intended; that section 119 confers time-extension power but cannot impose new substantive eligibility conditions; and that administrative delay by revenue does not justify denying access where an application was already filed.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Reasonable classification principle: differential deadline for charitable trust tax recognition cannot lack rational basis or equality protection.
A departmental circular extended a filing deadline for tax recognition to mitigate hardship but excluded newly formed charitable trusts without offering reasons; the exclusion lacked an intelligible differentia and rational nexus to the circular's object, making the differential treatment arbitrary and ultra vires the constitutional guarantee of equality, requiring the excluded applications to be treated as within time and decided on merits.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
ITSC jurisdiction extends beyond application disclosures, while full and true disclosure and narrow judicial review govern settlement oversight.
The Income Tax Settlement Commission may inquire into and decide issues disclosed in the application and any other matters relating to the case as reflected in the Commissioner's report or uncovered by further inquiry; full and true disclosure is mandatory and amendments or contradictory positions that undermine that requirement are impermissible, yet contesting taxability before the Commission does not automatically negate disclosure; judicial review is limited to statutory contravention, prejudice, fraud, bias or malice, while sufficiency of materials placed before the Commission is generally beyond routine court scrutiny.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Delay condonation denied where litigant's evasive conduct and non participation failed to constitute sufficient cause for appeal filing.
The court refused condonation of delay for filing an appeal where a best judgment assessment treated cash bank deposits as unexplained after the assessee failed to file returns or participate in proceedings; reliance on transition to a faceless e filing regime and lack of alerts was held insufficient, as the assessee's evasive and habitual non participation did not amount to sufficient cause warranting condonation under the applicable doctrine.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Sufficient cause for delay in filing appeals rejected where faceless scheme migration did not excuse prolonged inaction.
The court held that migration to a faceless appeal system did not, without persuasive evidence, constitute sufficient cause to condone a lengthy delay in filing an appeal, finding the explanation reflective of litigant inaction rather than unavoidable impediment. On tax deduction, the court applied authority that a non-obstante clause does not negate the employer's obligation to deposit employees' statutory contributions by the due date as a condition for claiming the deduction, and treated the appeal as meritless and barred by limitation.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Source of source doctrine used to pierce the corporate veil where share capital appears round tripped among related entities.
The assessee must prove identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of investors under section 68; examination extends to the true origin of funds where bank records show circular transfers, related party directorships, lack of business operations, and arbitrary share premium, permitting lifting the corporate veil and application of the source of source doctrine to treat such receipts as not satisfactorily explained.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Transfer of assessment proceedings for coordinated investigations and administrative convenience upheld where procedural safeguards and factual links exist.
The judgment explains that transfers of assessment proceedings pursuant to the statutory transfer power may be justified for coordinated enquiries and administrative convenience, provided the decision is not capricious or mala fide. Authorities must afford an opportunity to be heard and consider objections; where factual indicia exist - for example, disclosed transactions such as unsecured loans with searched persons - centralisation can be sustained. The convenience of the assessee is relevant but subservient to effective adjudication and tax collection, and transfers supported by procedural compliance and factual nexus are not arbitrary.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Burden of proof in share premium cases: failure to prove investor identity and genuineness sustains addition under section 68.
The assessment of share premium under section 68 requires the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of investors who subscribe at a premium. The court scrutinised disparate allotments made on consecutive days, examined subscribing companies' financials, and applied the doctrine of "source of source" restrictively, holding that incorporation papers or bank payments alone do not discharge the burden. Absent cogent evidence tracing funds to lawful origin and demonstrating commercial rationale for large premiums, additions under section 68 are supportable.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Strict construction of penalty provisions prevents penalty where taxpayer disclosed omitted income before assessment notice.
The legal focal point is whether Section 271(1)(c) can be invoked where an assessee disclosed omitted income and paid differential tax before initiation of reassessment. Penal provisions require strict construction, and Explanation 1 treats a pre-notice satisfactory explanation and admission of additional income as accepted, precluding characterization as concealment. Additionally, a penalty notice must specify the particular ground for proceeding; failure to do so renders the notice defective and undermines the basis for penalty.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Scope of reassessment: AO may address newly noticed income but remains constrained by the recorded reasons for reopening.
Where the AO has recorded reasons to believe income escaped assessment, the AO may assess or reassess issues that come to notice during reassessment, but if no additions or modifications are ultimately made in respect of the issues that formed the basis for reopening, the AO cannot make additions or modifications relating solely to other matters that were part of the original assessment. Explanation 3 applies only after reassessment power is validly invoked and cannot be used to deviate from or supplant the recorded reasons.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Corroboration requirement for search statements: unsupported search statements cannot sustain additions without linked incriminating material and fair cross examination.
Additions for alleged accommodation entries cannot rest solely on statements recorded during search operations; such statements require corroboration by material found in the search that is specifically linked to the assessee. The assessing officer must articulate a factual nexus between seized group material and the assessee, and procedural fairness-including provision of relevant statements and opportunity for cross-examination-is essential. Cure provisions do not validate jurisdictional defects arising from absence of requisite notice or lack of incriminating material.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Registration under Section 80G: provisional approval permits subsequent final registration regardless of prior commencement of activities.
The Tribunal held that institutions granted provisional approval under the First Proviso to Section 80G(5) are entitled to apply for final registration under the proviso's final-registration clause, and that the relevant date of commencement is to be counted from activities undertaken after grant of provisional registration; a prior commencement of activities before provisional grant cannot alone justify rejection of a final-approval application.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Search assessment provisions under Sections 153A and 153C override ordinary reassessment time limits; asset-threshold verification required.
The judgment holds that search-triggered assessment provisions function as non-obstante clauses displacing ordinary reassessment time limits, distinguishes the enduring liability to tax from the temporal right to assess, prescribes that block periods are computed from the year of search (or date of receipt of seized records for non-searched persons), and treats the asset-represented income threshold as a mandatory, aggregable precondition requiring the assessing officer's recorded satisfaction.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Seized-material nexus under Section 153C: AO must form reasoned satisfaction before reopening assessments for specific years.
Section 153C requires the Assessing Officer to form a reasoned satisfaction that seized material during a search has a bearing on an assessee's total income before initiating assessments; mere discovery is insufficient, and the AO must identify specific assessment years, map incriminating material year-wise, and record reasons to justify abatement or reopening.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Royalty classification of software payments: remittances for software purchases are not treated as royalty under established precedent.
Where distribution agreements or End User License Agreements do not grant any proprietary interest or a right to use copyright, payments for acquiring computer software are not to be characterised as royalty; this conclusion follows controlling precedent and DTAA considerations and renders an Assessing Officer's contrary classification inconsistent with the correct legal interpretation.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Reopening assessments: procedural compliance and substantive escapement requirements determine validity of reassessment notices.
The judgment examines validity of notices under Section 148, holding that TOLA does not apply retrospectively for the assessment year at issue and notices issued after the statutory cutoff cannot be back-dated. Notices barred by the limitation in Section 149(1) are ineffective. Procedural prerequisites - notably issuance of a Document Identification Number and issuance through automated allocation by the faceless centre rather than direct action by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer - are mandatory. Substantively, reopening requires escapement of income in the form of an asset, expenditure, transaction, event, or book entry; a mere change of opinion or dispute over an ordinarily allowed deduction does not meet that threshold.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Faceless assessment: issuance of section 148 reopening notices by jurisdictional assessing officers inconsistent with faceless regime.
The faceless assessment framework under Section 151A and the Scheme dated 29 March 2022 allocates exclusive jurisdiction to either the Faceless Assessment Officer or the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for issuance of reopening notices and assessments; actions by an authority outside its assigned jurisdiction are inconsistent with the faceless regime and cause prejudice to the taxpayer as a matter of law.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Deduction eligibility for operational hotels affirmed despite administrative delay in star classification, focusing on substantive compliance.
The court addressed entitlement to a deduction under Section 35AD(5)(aa) where a hotel began operations and generated income in the relevant year and a timely application for star classification was submitted, but formal certification was delayed due to administrative inspections; the court applied a purposive construction to allow the deduction when substantive operational conditions were satisfied and delay was not the assessee's fault.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Depreciation entitlement for leasing companies where contractual ownership and business use are established, allowing higher depreciation rates.
A lessor retains entitlement to depreciation where lease terms demonstrate exclusive ownership rights, repossession power, return obligations and inspection rights, and where the asset is used in the course of the lessor's leasing business; actual physical use by the lessor is not required. Leasing activity that functionally equates to hiring can qualify assets for an enhanced rate of depreciation despite registration in the lessee's name.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Revenue classification of debenture issuance expenses upheld as revenue expenditure despite later conversion into equity.
Expenses incurred to issue convertible debentures that are raised to provide working capital are to be treated as revenue expenditure because classification depends on the purpose and usage of the expenditure, and future conversion into shares does not change its revenue character.

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

Showing Results for :
Reset Filters
No Records Found

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

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

Acts Income Tax