Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 TMI Notes - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ----
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Jurisdictional Prerequisites for Initiating Reassessment u/s 148: Non-Depoist of TDS by the Employer
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revisiting the Scope of "Record" u/s 263: Embracing Subsequent Records
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Record": Revisiting the Scope of Revision Powers u/s 264 and Rectification of Mistake ...
    The Doctrine of Natural Justice in GST Proceedings: A Case Study on Show Cause Notice u/s 74"
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) and the Concept of "Plant" under GST: Supreme Court
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: High Court's Stance on Quashing Show Cause Notices
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: Upholding the Principles of Natural Justice
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Re-Assessment Notices Issued During COVID-19 Lockdown
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Unraveling the Mineral Rights Regime: The Supreme Court's Landmark Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Assessment Regime: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Evidentiary Value of Statements Recorded During Income Tax Surveys: A Judicial Analysis
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment: Ensuring Compliance with Statutory Provisions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment Mechanism: Jurisdictional Limits in Income Tax Proceedings
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessment Notices for AY 2013-14: Upholding the Doctrine of Limitation
    Principles of Tax Fairness and Mens Rea: Quashes Penalty for Mere Technical Errors
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Decoding the Mandatory Timelines: A Thorough Examination of the Income Tax Assessment Order Nullific...
    Expiry of E-Way Bill AND Mens Rea: Technical Violation Alone Insufficient for Penalty Imposition
    Maintainability of Appeals: High Court Upholds Strict Interpretation of Limitation Provisions in GST...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Stay of Tax Demand: Interpreting the Discretionary Power u/s 220(6) of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Technical Services" under Tax Treaties: A Comprehensive Analysis
❯❯
MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

    +

    Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

    NOTE:

    Notes
    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
    Results Found:
    Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdictional prerequisite: notice in the name of a deceased person invalidates reassessment initiation under Section 148.
    A notice under Section 148 issued in the name of a deceased person is a jurisdictional defect because a valid notice to the correct person is a condition precedent to reopening an assessment; legal representatives have no statutory duty to intimate death; where salary tax has been deducted at source, reassessment cannot be pursued against the deceased or their representatives, and employer non-deposit of TDS does not create an outstanding demand against the assessee or their legal representatives.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisional power: Commissioner may consider subsequent records available at time of examination in tax proceedings.
    The Court construed the Commissioner's revisional power to permit consideration of all materials relating to the proceeding that are available at the time of his examination, including documents and valuation reports that came on the file after the assessment order; the Explanation to the provision was read as clarificatory, giving an inclusive meaning to "record" rather than restricting it to what the Assessing Officer had when passing the assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revision powers under section 264: Commissioner must consider expanded record and rehear revision petitions on merits.
    The Court held that the Commissioner must consider a revision petition on its merits and that the term record in revision proceedings extends beyond the return and assessment order to include material from other sources and prior assessments. It emphasised consistency in treatment of continuing transactions and required the Principal Commissioner to take into account all relevant materials, identify any apparent mistakes, afford a personal hearing, and pass a reasoned order within a short timeframe.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice in tax proceedings: show cause notices must allege fraud or concealment before enhanced recovery is invoked.
    The court quashed the enhanced-provision show cause notice for failing to allege the essential elements of fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts and held that the enhanced regime may be invoked only when the adjudicating authority is prima facie satisfied of those elements and records that satisfaction in the notice; absent such express allegations the proceedings are without jurisdiction though fresh proceedings may be initiated with a proper notice.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Plant classification under GST: functionality test determines ITC eligibility for buildings serving special technical requirements.
    The expression plant or machinery in Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act must be interpreted by reference to functionality rather than by equating it with the statutory definition of "plant and machinery." A building qualifies as a plant for ITC purposes if, on the facts, it was planned and constructed to serve the assessee's special technical or operational requirements. The functionality test is fact-specific and requires case-by-case analysis of the building's role in the assessee's business.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication bars further proceedings on stale show cause notices absent a reasonable explanation.
    The court found the delay from 2008 to 2021 inordinate and unexplained, concluding the respondents did not provide a reasonable explanation; the delayed transfer to the call book without intimation breached statutory intimation requirements, and established precedent limits reliance on higher authority to excuse gross unexplained delays in adjudication of show cause notices.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication undermines procedural fairness and bars continuation of prolonged, unexplained proceedings.
    The court found that prolonged, unexplained delay in adjudicating a show cause notice breached procedural fairness and natural justice, causing irretrievable prejudice by impairing evidence preservation and business planning. Delay attributable to the revenue authorities, contrary to Tribunal directions for timely disposal, rendered continuance of proceedings unsustainable and emphasized the necessity of justifying delay and ensuring timely adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Pandemic relief legislation upheld: re-assessment notices issued during lockdown remain valid despite later procedural rule.
    The court interpreted the pandemic relief legislation as providing comprehensive relief that extended to procedural obligations in force at the time of issuance, not confined solely to extensions of time. It applied the principle that statutes operate prospectively and concluded the later-introduced procedural provision does not apply retrospectively to invalidate earlier-issued re-assessment notices, limiting its analysis to the validity of issuance and not the merits of re-assessment proceedings.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Central legislative competence over mineral regulation affirmed; royalties characterised as compensation for resource depletion, limiting state levies.
    The Court concluded that the central legislative framework occupies the field of mineral regulation and that royalties are compensation for depletion of state-owned natural resources, not conventional taxes; consequently the Centre may impose such levies while States remain constrained from imposing royalties in the nature of compensation that would encroach on the Centre's exclusive regulatory domain.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment mechanism requires reassessment steps to follow a centralized faceless procedure, otherwise territorial officer lacks jurisdiction.
    The Scheme framed under the enabling provision must be read to include preliminary proceedings linked to reassessment, so that reassessment initiation and related steps follow the faceless mechanism; concurrent exercise of territorial and faceless functions would undermine the Scheme's purpose and render steps taken outside the faceless protocol inconsistent with the statutory framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Evidentiary value of survey statements: survey disclosures lack conclusive weight and require independent corroboration.
    Statements recorded during a tax survey are permissive and not taken on oath, so they are not conclusive evidence by themselves; they cannot be treated as inherently incriminating material to justify reopening assessments or making additions without independent corroboration, and must be recorded free of coercion in line with administrative instructions and judicial precedents.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment jurisdiction: JAO lacked authority under the statutory faceless procedure, invalidating improperly issued notices.
    The court determined that reassessment notices and related proceedings were inconsistent with the statutory faceless assessment framework because they were issued without following the prescribed allocation of jurisdiction and procedural sequence under the faceless mechanism; administrative orders purportedly exempting cases were not read to displace the statutory requirements and earlier precedent interpreting the faceless provisions was applied.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless Assessment: statutory scheme governs jurisdiction and extends to central and international taxation proceedings.
    The court analysed Section 151A read with Sections 144B and 148A and held that administrative instructions dated March 31, 2021 and September 6, 2021 issued under section 119 apply only to assessment orders and do not extend to proceedings under Sections 148A and 148; those instructions cannot be read into the scheme notified on March 29, 2022. The mandatory faceless procedure under Sections 144B and 151A applies to notices and proceedings, including central charges and international taxation charges, and notices issued outside that mechanism fall outside the statutory jurisdictional framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Doctrine of limitation prevents revival of lapsed reassessment powers; administrative instructions cannot "travel back in time."
    The court held that when the right to reopen assessment had already lapsed under the pre amended limitation regime, subsequent amendments or administrative instructions could not revive that right; administrative attempts to "travel back in time" and extend limitation were invalid, assessees retain the defence of limitation, and pandemic era notifications did not cover years whose limitation had already expired.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement in tax penalties: technical errors without intent cannot justify penalty imposition under GST compliance.
    Requirement of mens rea for imposition of tax penalties is central where e Way Bill compliance is questioned. Mere procedural or timing inconsistencies, without evidence of intent to evade tax and where valid tax invoices accompany the goods and tax has been charged, do not justify penal action. Authorities must establish culpable intent with cogent reasoning and comply with procedural and natural justice safeguards before imposing penalties.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Mandatory timelines under Section 144C require assessments to be completed within the prescribed month after DRP direction, else invalid.
    Once the DRP framed directions, the Assessing Officer was obliged to complete the assessment in conformity with those directions within one month from the end of the month in which the DRP's direction was served; service by uploading the DRP directive on the ITBA portal constitutes valid service for computing that period. The procedure does not envisage further involvement of the Transfer Pricing Officer once the DRP's direction is issued and an order under the transfer pricing provision has been remitted to the AO.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement: technical expiry of an e way bill alone cannot justify a tax penalty without intent to evade.
    The court held that a purely technical lapse in E Way Bill formalities - where goods were otherwise covered by two e invoices and two E Way Bills and there was no dispute on consignor, consignee or goods - does not demonstrate the mens rea necessary to impose a penalty under the tax penal provision; authorities' focus on the expired E Way Bill alone was legally insufficient given documentary explanations and absence of intent to evade tax.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Exclusion of Limitation Act: GST Act's specific appellate time limits operate as a self contained code, barring general extensions.
    The court analysed whether the GST Act's appellate limitation regime operates as a complete code excluding the general Limitation Act. It applied the principle that fiscal statutes with detailed procedural and temporal rules are to be strictly construed, treating the special statute's limitation provision as implying exclusion of the Limitation Act's extension mechanism, and emphasised policy aims of expeditious dispute resolution, revenue certainty and administrative finality.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Assessing Officer discretion in granting stay of tax demand cannot be rigidly constrained by administrative OMs, requiring case specific consideration.
    The Assessing Officer's discretionary power under section 220(6) to grant stay of tax demand is not fettered by CBDT Office Memorandums; those OMs are administrative guidelines and do not mandate a uniform pre deposit. The AO must consider prima facie case, likelihood of success, and undue hardship and may require a higher, lower or no deposit depending on case specific facts. Administrative adjustment of refunds without considering a pending stay application was held arbitrary and the matter was remitted for reconsideration applying these principles.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Technical services interpretation requires specialized expertise and a demonstrable link to payments for withholding tax consequences.
    Interpretation of technical services under the India Ireland DTAA requires the application or transfer of specialized knowledge, skill or expertise; incidental training or assistance enabling a reseller to market standard software does not meet that threshold. The Reseller Agreement did not contemplate technology transfer or bespoke solutions, payments were tied to reseller net revenue, and the record lacked material linking remittances to customized technical services. Authorities must establish an evidentiary and contractual nexus between payments and provision of specialized technical services before applying withholding tax under the treaty.

    TMI Notes

    Back

    All TMI Notes

    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
      No Records Found

      TMI Notes

      Back

      All TMI Notes

      whatsappJoin Channel
      Showing Results for : Reset Filters

      Comparison of Section 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