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 LawsCustoms
    Decoding the Interplay of Customs Duty, Interest, and Confiscation Proceedings
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Assessment u/s 153C: Reckoning the Limitation Period
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting 'Initiation' of Penalty Action u/s 275(1)(c): Period of Limitation
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment: Decoding the Exemptions for International Tax Charges
    Interpreting Rule 86A: Safeguarding Taxpayers' Rights in ITC Blocking
    Writ Jurisdiction Not a Shortcut to Bypass Tax Adjudication Process, Rules Court: Judicial Disciplin...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Decoding the Interplay of Sections 153A and 153C in Search Assessments: Limitation and Reassessment ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Customs Valuation and Classification: Upholding Due Process and Objective Assessment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Income Tax Case Transfers: Place of Business vs. Registered Office: Determining the Appropriate Juri...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Writ Petitions and Section 153C Proceedings: Examining the High Court Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting Time Limits for 80G Registration for Charitable Institutions: Avoiding Absurdity in the...
    Unraveling the Web: Forgery, Fake GST Firms, and the Pursuit of Economic Justice
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interplay between the provisions of Section 153C and Section 147: Limits on Automatic Reassessment i...
    Decoding the GST Forgery Case: Balancing Personal Liberty and Safeguarding Public Interest for Grant...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Equity and Justice in Tax Matters: Condonation of Bona Fide Delays
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Embracing Equity in Tax Laws: Recognizing Genuine Difficulties in Condonation of Delays in filing of...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Recovery Proceedings Against Legal Heirs of Sole Proprietors: Invalidity of Demand Notices Issued Ag...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Jurisdiction of DRI Officers: Supreme Court Upholds Section 97 of Finance Act 2022 validating Custom...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Dissecting the Legality of IGST on Ocean Freight for FOB Imports: Refund of IGST
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Real Income Taxation: Avoiding Double Disallowance of Wages and Salaries Payable
❯❯
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 LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Customs duty liability on redemption: assessment under Section 28 triggers interest under Section 28AB for delayed payment.
    The court concluded that duty liability arises when an owner redeems confiscated goods under Section 125(2), while the procedural assessment and determination of that duty can be carried out under Section 28, and that the interest provision of Section 28AB applies where Section 28 is invoked for such duties; the Jagdish Cancer ratio does not preclude applying Section 28 in confiscation-redemption assessments.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation under Section 153C: six-year period runs from receipt of seized documents, requiring assessment under Section 153C.
    Where seized assets, documents and digital data recovered from a third party are found to relate to another person, the date on which the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction receives those seized materials is the deemed date of search for reckoning the six-year limitation period; that deemed date determines the relevant assessment year and which prior six assessment years fall under the special procedure for initiating assessments under Section 153C.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Initiation of penalty proceedings: limitation runs from the Assessing Officer's reference, barring belated penalty orders.
    Initiation of penalty proceedings occurs when the Assessing Officer makes a reference to the competent authority; the subsequent show cause notice is a procedural opportunity and does not restart the limitation period, so the statutory limitation for completing penalty proceedings runs from the date of the Assessing Officer's reference and a penalty order passed after that period is time barred.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment procedure must govern issuance of Section 148 notices in international tax matters, irrespective of residency.
    The court held that the plain language of the faceless scheme, Section 144B(2) and the CBDT order requires that issuance of Section 148 notices in matters involving international tax charges comply with the mandatory faceless assessment procedure, irrespective of the taxpayer's residency status, and that notices issued without adherence to that procedure are inconsistent with the statutory scheme.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    ITC blocking under Rule 86A: restricts orders to credit presently available in the electronic credit ledger, limiting retrospective blockage.
    Rule 86A(1) functions as a temporary protective mechanism that may be invoked only where input tax credit is currently available in the taxpayer's electronic credit ledger and the officer has reasons to believe that such present credit has been fraudulently availed or is ineligible; the expression "amount equivalent to such credit" must be read together with the condition of availability in the ECL and does not authorise retrospective blocking of ITC already utilised or refunded.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Exhaustion of statutory remedies prevents direct writ challenges to tax demands absent exceptional circumstances or factual disputes.
    The court held that exhaustion of statutory remedies bars writ relief where efficacious alternate remedies exist and where resolution requires factual or classification inquiries; finding no exceptional circumstances to bypass the statutory process, the court dismissed the writ petitions but granted liberty to the petitioners to pursue statutory remedies, including filing responses to show cause notices or appeals against adjudication orders within the period allowed, subject to compliance with prescribed conditions such as pre-deposit obligations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reassessment limitation: commencement depends on AO's recorded satisfaction, not the search date, for non-searched entities.
    Reassessment of a non-searched entity under Section 153C must be measured from the date the Assessing Officer records satisfaction about the seized material's relevance to that entity, not from the date of the search when the same AO is involved; the proviso to Section 153A(1) prevents the extended limitation period introduced by the 2017 amendment from applying to searches before the statutory cutoff, and physical handover of materials is a machinery provision rather than the substantive commencement trigger.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Transaction value protection: declared import price accepted; principal-use classification of motor controllers affirmed after procedural defects in reassessment were found
    The tribunal upheld the declared transaction value, finding that the authority enhanced assessable value without following statutory procedures and without proving non-comparability; NIDB assessed-value data alone was insufficient. On classification, the motor controllers were held to be parts principally used with electric motors and correctly classed under CTH 8503, with explanatory notes and the principal-use test displacing revenue's attempt to treat them as vehicle accessories.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Place of business controls assessment jurisdiction; transfer permitted where incriminating materials were seized in that jurisdiction.
    When incriminating materials seized in a particular circle are directly connected to an assessee's business activities and essential to assessment, the assessing authority may transfer proceedings to the circle where those materials were seized. The decision emphasizes that place of business-reflecting where operative evidence and activities occurred-can control assessment jurisdiction, and that transfer facilitates a coordinated investigation while procedural safeguards like show cause notices and opportunities to reply remain relevant.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Writ jurisdiction preserved where exceptions to alternative remedies exist; defective Section 153C compliance undermines post-search assessments.
    The court analysed when High Court writ jurisdiction may be exercised despite alternative remedies, reiterating exceptions for violations of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, or fundamental rights. It examined Section 153C procedural requirements, particularly the necessity of a valid satisfaction note by the Assessing Officer of the searched person, time limits and jurisdictional competence, and the limited evidentiary value of loose sheets and retracted statements absent corroboration.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Time limits for 80G registration: purposive interpretation prevents existing charities being barred and preserves merit-based verification.
    The Tribunal construed the amended registration scheme to hold that the six month filing period tied to commencement of activities applies to newly formed institutions that have not begun activities, not to existing charities that obtained provisional approval; it required the assessing authority to treat applications filed within six months before provisional approval expiry as within time and to verify eligibility on merits, providing opportunity to supply documents.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Admissibility of custodial disclosures: discovery linked statements can be admitted, shaping jurisdiction and bail in GST fraud cases.
    The summary addresses three operative legal points: admissibility of custodial disclosures limited to parts directly leading to discovery of material items; jurisdictional inquiry in multi state economic offences founded on connections between the complainant, place of lodging the FIR and links to accused and firms; and stringent bail evaluation in large scale economic crimes considering gravity, evidence, punishment, risk of tampering, accused's influence and public interest, applied to a scheme of forged GST firms and bogus invoices.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Non obstante clause in third party search provision applies only after the AO assumes jurisdiction by issuing a notice.
    The Assessing Officer of the other person must record satisfaction that incriminating material relates to that person's total income for specific assessment years before issuing a third party notice; the non obstante clause in the third party provision applies only after the Assessing Officer assumes jurisdiction by issuing such a notice and does not oust regular reassessment provisions where jurisdiction under the third party scheme is not assumed.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Bail in economic offences: stricter scrutiny where circumstantial financial links to proceeds of crime risk investigation and public interest.
    The court examined bail appropriateness where applicants allegedly knowingly received and concealed proceeds from a large-scale GST fraud involving fake registrations and bogus invoices. It treated unexplained transactions as strong circumstantial evidence of complicity and applied a heightened bail regime for serious economic offences, weighing gravity of offence, public fund loss, evidence strength and risk of tampering. Gender or familial ties were held insufficient to justify leniency when individuals are shown to have benefited from proceeds of crime.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay: bona fide short technical glitches in filing income tax returns warrant equitable condonation by authorities.
    The High Court held that a one day, bona fide delay in filing an income tax return due to a technical portal glitch could not be rejected merely because the return had been processed with a demand; such reasoning was misconceived. Applying earlier authorities that endorse an empathetic and non rigid approach, the court emphasised that short delays caused by genuine human or technical problems should be condoned in exercise of administrative discretion, reinforcing the primacy of equity and justice in condonation applications for returns.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay: personal illness of a tax professional can justify relief in filing income tax returns.
    The summary establishes that under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, delay in filing returns caused by personal difficulties of a chartered accountant (such as illness of a family member) can be a genuine reason for discretionary condonation; authorities should assess such claims sensitively, require reasoned disbelief if rejecting medical evidence, and interpret discretionary tax powers in light of equity, substantial justice and harmonious construction.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Invalidity of notices to deceased persons prevents recovery from legal heirs absent specific statutory machinery enabling continuation.
    Issuance of a demand or show cause notice to a deceased sole proprietor is a jurisdictional defect because notice to the correct person is a condition precedent under the Customs Drawback Rules; absent a statutory machinery provision or voluntary submission by legal representatives, recovery of erroneously availed drawback and penalties cannot be pursued against legal heirs.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdiction of revenue intelligence officers affirmed: legislative validation sustains past customs show cause notices as constitutionally permissible.
    The Court concluded the defect identified in Canon India is unfounded when Notification No. 44/2011 and amended Section 17 are read together, distinguishing assessment functions under Section 17 from recovery under Section 28, and held that Section 97 of the Finance Act, 2022 validly and purposively validates past show cause notices issued by DRI and similarly situated officers, with retrospective application limited to the object of validation and passing Article 14 tests of reasonable classification and proportionality.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    IGST on ocean freight invalid where IGST already paid on import value, preventing double taxation under valuation rules.
    The court held that where IGST has been paid on the value of imported goods inclusive of cost, freight and insurance under Section 5(1) of the IGST Act read with the Customs Act, the CIF/FOB distinction is immaterial and a notification provision seeking separate IGST on ocean freight for FOB imports cannot be sustained, reinforcing fiscal neutrality and preventing double taxation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Timing difference in wage provisions prevents double disallowance; actual payment deductible after reversal.
    Where provisions for wages and salaries are reversed in the return and actual payments are later made and evidenced, those entries represent a timing difference rather than inherently bogus expenditure; treating the same item as disallowable in the earlier year and again disallowing the later payment would result in double disallowance contrary to the taxation of real income.

    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 35 "Amounts not deductible in certain circumstances" 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 35 Amounts not deductible in certain circumstances.

      Income-tax Act, 2025 [As Passed]

      At a Glance

      Clause 35 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) sets out amounts that shall be disallowed as deductions while computing income under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession" irrespective of Chapter IV-D. It matters to taxpayers (businesses, firms, AOPs), withholding agents, and employers; it also affects cross-border payments subject to TDS or equalisation levy. Effective date or enactment date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: Clause 35 operates "Irrespective of any other provision of Chapter IV-D" and repeatedly references Chapter XIX-B (TDS provisions), section 263(1) (due date for payment of TDS), section 159/160 (relief for tax paid in another country), Chapter VIII of the Finance Act, 2016 (equalisation levy), and the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Coverage: the clause enumerates categories of payments/disbursements that are not deductible for computing business/professional income. Definitions or explanations supplied in the text include meanings of "book profit" and "working partner" and detailed treatment of "representative partner" and "representative member".

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Clause 35 disallows deductions in several discrete areas:

      • Payments of tax: any amount on account of tax paid on income, tax paid by certain employers (Schedule III, Table Sl. No.10), or foreign tax eligible for relief u/ss 159 or 160; surcharge or cess on such tax are included.
      • Failure to deduct/pay TDS (30% rule): 30% of any sum payable to a resident on which tax is deductible under Chapter XIX-B is disallowed where TDS has not been deducted or, after deduction, not paid up to the due date in section 263(1). Where tax is deducted/paid in a subsequent year, deduction of such sum is allowed in that subsequent year in which tax has been paid. If the payer is required to deduct but fails to do so and is not deemed a defaulting assessee u/s 398(2), the payer is deemed to have deducted and paid tax on the date the payee files the return u/s 398(2).
      • Overseas or non-resident payments: similar rule for interest, royalty, fees for technical services or other sums payable outside India or in India to non-residents (not companies) or to foreign companies; same 30% non-allowance and subsequent-year allowance mechanics apply, with a parallel deemed-deduction rule tied to section 398(2).
      • Provident and other employee funds: payments to such funds are not deductible unless the assessee ensures effective arrangements for TDS under Chapter XIX-B from payments made from the fund that are taxable as "Salaries".
      • Payments chargeable under "Salaries": payments chargeable under "Salaries" and payable outside India or to a non-resident where TDS under Chapter XIX-B is not deducted/paid are disallowed.
      • Equalisation levy on specified services: any consideration paid or payable to a non-resident for a specified service on which equalisation levy is deductible under Chapter VIII of the Finance Act, 2016, and which has not been deducted/paid up to the due date in section 263(1), is disallowed; deduction of such consideration is allowed in any subsequent tax year in which such levy has been paid.
      • State Government appropriations: amounts levied exclusively on, or appropriated from, a State Government undertaking by the State Government are not deductible.
      • Partnerships: disallowance rules for firms where payments to partners (remuneration, salary, bonus, commission or interest) are not authorised by the partnership deed, relate to periods before the deed, or aggregate remuneration to working partners exceeds a specified formula (first Rs.600,000 or, in loss Rs.300,000 or 90% of book profit, whichever higher; balance at 60%). Interest above 12% p.a. is disallowed. Detailed rules deal with representative partners and exclude certain interest from computation in representative capacities.
      • Associations of persons / bodies of individuals: disallowance for interest/salary/bonus/commission paid to members, with rules for netting cross-payments and special treatment for representative members; exclusions for companies, co-operative societies and societies registered under the Societies Registration Act are specified.

      Interpretation

      The text demonstrates a legislative intent to tighten deductibility where withholding obligations (TDS or equalisation levy) are not complied with by the payer, to align tax deduction obligations with allowance of expense deductions. The provisions adopt a mechanical approach: non-deductibility in the year of non-compliance with a pathway to allow deduction in the year when the withholding/levy obligation is actually fulfilled (i.e., payment/deduction). The partnership provisions reflect a policy of controlling tax avoidance by attributing unreasonable partner payments and interest to deny business deductions.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      The clause contains operational provisos:

      • For TDS/equalisation levy shortfalls, the disallowance is limited to 30% of the sum (for resident payments) and similar treatment for non-resident/foreign company payments; where the tax/levy is paid in a later year, deduction is allowed in that later year.
      • Where the payer fails to deduct but is not deemed an assessee in default u/s 398(2), the payer is deemed to have deducted and paid tax on the date the payee files the return as referred to in section 398(2) - an explicit deeming mechanism to avoid permanent disallowance in certain circumstances.
      • Partnership remuneration and interest are allowed only to the extent authorised by partnership deed and subject to the formula and cap contained in the clause.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A resident service provider paid Rs.1,000,000 during FY where payer failed to deduct TDS by the due date. Under Clause 35(b)(i), 30% of that sum (Rs.300,000) is not allowed as deduction in the payer's computation for that FY. If the payer deducts and pays the tax in the next FY, deduction for the 30% would be allowed in that subsequent FY (subject to actual tax payment timing).
      • Example 2: A firm pays interest at 15% p.a. to a partner as authorised by a post-dated partnership deed. Interest in excess of 12% p.a. would be disallowed under Clause 35(f)(iv), and the disallowed portion would be denied in computing firm profits.
      • Example 3: An AOP pays interest to a member and receives interest back from that member; only the net excess interest (if any) paid by the AOP would be disallowed under Clause 35(g)(ii).

      Interplay

      Clause 35 expressly interacts with Chapter IV-D, Chapter XIX-B, section 263(1), section 398(2), sections 159/160 (double tax relief), Chapter VIII of the Finance Act, 2016 (equalisation levy), Schedule III (Table Sl. No.10) and the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The provision is designed to work in tandem with withholding provisions (Chapter XIX-B) and the equalisation levy regime; it uses existing deeming and due-date concepts from the TDS framework to time the allowance or denial of deductions. Not stated in the document: any cross-references to Rules, Forms or procedure to report delayed payment of TDS/equalisation levy beyond the general references.

      Differences between Section 35 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 - (As Passed) and Clause 35 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - (Old Version)

      • Placement and numbering of sub-clauses: The As Passed version reorders and renumbers certain sub-clauses (for example, provisions dealing with payments chargeable under "Salaries", State Government undertakings and partnership/AoP rules appear under different clause letters).
        • Practical impact: purely structural but may affect ease of cross-referencing; substantively most core rules remain with modest drafting changes.
      • Equalisation levy / specified service consideration: The Old Version (Clause 35) contains an express sub-clause (d)(i) disallowing deduction for consideration paid to a non-resident for a specified service where equalisation levy under Chapter VIII of the Finance Act, 2016 had to be deducted but was not deducted/paid; it also provided that deduction is allowed in a subsequent year when levy is paid. The As Passed text (Section 35) does not contain this equalisation-levy sub-clause; instead it includes a clause (d) concerning amounts paid by or appropriated from a State Government undertaking.
        • Practical impact: removal of the equalisation-levy-specific disallowance in the As Passed draft narrows the scope of non-deductibility and leaves treatment of equalisation levy either to another provision or to administrative guidance; taxpayers paying cross-border specified services are less explicitly penalised here for non-deduction of equalisation levy under the Act as passed.
      • 30% Rule and timing mechanics: Both texts contain a provision disallowing 30% of payments to residents (where TDS under Chapter XIX-B has not been deducted/paid by the due date). The As Passed drafting frames the conditional allowance when tax is deducted later slightly differently (refers to deduction in any subsequent year or during the tax year but paid after due date - 30% allowed in the year tax is paid). The Old Version similarly allows deduction in a subsequent tax year when tax is deducted and paid.
        • Practical impact: substantive effect appears similar (disallow 30% until tax is actually paid/deducted), but the As Passed drafting emphasises timing of payment versus deduction; possible interpretive emphasis on date of payment of tax as the trigger for allowance of the 30% element.
      • Provident/other fund rule: Both versions disallow payments to employee funds unless effective arrangements exist to secure TDS under Chapter XIX-B from payments made from the fund that are taxable as "Salaries". Drafting varies slightly but content is aligned.
        • Practical impact: continuity of requirement; employers must ensure withholding mechanisms in place for fund disbursements or face disallowance.
      • Partnership remuneration and interest rules: Both contain detailed rules limiting partner remuneration and interest (authorisation by partnership deed; computation of aggregate remuneration with sliding rates; 12% cap on interest). Differences are drafting and phrasing (Old Version uses words like "six lakh rupees" and explicit treatment of "representative partner"). As Passed uses numerals and reorganises representative capacity provisions.
        • Practical impact: substantive limits remain; drafting refinements may affect interpretation of "periods" and the interplay of partnership deeds dated after payment periods.
      • Associations of persons / bodies of individuals: Old Version contains an extended clause (g) with more detailed subclauses addressing mutual interest payments, representative members and exceptions. As Passed consolidates and slightly narrows wording (f) and explicitly excludes companies, co-operative societies and societies registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860.
        • Practical impact: largely consistent treatment but minor drafting differences could create interpretive questions (e.g., scope of exclusions and application to bodies formed under other laws).

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Payers must ensure timely deduction and deposit of TDS and equalisation levy where applicable, failing which a portion (30% for specified resident payments; full or as specified for others) of the payment will be disallowed in the year of non-compliance. Employers must ensure arrangements for TDS on payments out of employee funds to secure deductibility.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: Documentation demonstrating deduction and deposit dates, partnership deeds (and their effective periods), records of representative capacity arrangements, and evidence of payments/levy compliance will be critical to substantiate deductions in later years.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 35 denies deductions tied to failure to comply with withholding and equalisation levy obligations, but allows restoration of deduction in the year the obligation is satisfied.
      • A 30% disallowance rule applies to certain resident payments subject to TDS until tax is actually paid/deducted.
      • Distinct treatment is applied to payments outside India or to non-residents/foreign companies for interest, royalty and technical fees.
      • Employers must ensure TDS arrangements for employee funds to retain deductibility.
      • Partnership payments and interest are tightly regulated by reference to partnership deeds and prescribed caps (including a 12% interest ceiling and a formula for allowable working partner remuneration).
      • Associations of persons / BOIs face disallowance for member payments, with netting for mutual interest payments and special rules for representative members.
      • The clause operates through linkage with existing TDS and equalisation levy mechanisms and includes deeming provisions tied to section 398(2).

      Full Text:

      Section 35 Amounts not deductible in certain circumstances.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax