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
    Upholding the Transfer of Assessment Proceedings u/s 127: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsService Tax
    Navigating the Taxation Labyrinth: The Supreme Court's Guidance on Transfer of Right to Use Goods
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Supreme Court Upholds Forfeiture of Earnest-Money Deposits under SARFAESI Rules
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    The Generality vs. Enumeration Principle: A Key to Interpreting Delegated Rule-Making Power: Validit...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Share Premium Addition u/s 68: Demystifying Share Premium Transactions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Intricacies of Income Tax Penalty u/s 271(1)(c): Fairness in Tax Administration
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Ensuring Fair Procedure before declaring Fraud in Bank Loan: Providing Relevant Documents and Opport...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Scope and Limitations under Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of Search and Seizure Assessments: Unraveling the Intricacies of Section...
    Decoding the Judgement: Navigating the Complexities of ITC Eligibility under the GST Regime
    Excess stock found during survey: Navigating the Intricacies of UPGST / CGST Act and Invoking Wrong ...
    Striking a Balance: Judicial Interpretation of GST Provisions on Record-Keeping and Penalties
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Interim Orders and the Limits of Article 142: Safeguarding Natural Justice Balancing Judicial Powers...
    Upholding Fairness and Transparency in Insolvency Resolution: A Landmark Judgment on the IBC
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Supreme Court Clarifies Vicarious Liability of Directors in Cheque Dishonour Cases
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Interim Compensation in Cheque Dishonor Cases: Discretion and Due Process, Scope of the word "May"
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Unraveling the Principles of Delay Condonation: A Comprehensive Analysis by the Supreme Court
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting Section 80G Provisions: ITAT's Stance on Charitable Institution Registration
    Case LawsCustoms
    Monetary Limits for Filing Appeals: Analyzing the CESTAT Judgment on Binding Nature of CBIC Instruct...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting the Scope and Limits of Sections 153A and 153C: A Judicial Perspective
❯❯
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
    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 LawsService Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Transfer of right to use goods: contracts retaining operational control are service arrangements, not deemed sales under VAT.
    The issue is whether supply agreements for cranes, trailers and tank trucks amount to a transfer of the right to use goods under the deemed sale provision. Applying the five BSNL tests-availability of goods, consensus on identity, transferee's legal right to use, exclusivity of use, and non transferability by owner-the contracts failed to meet the criteria. Contractors retained possession, crew, fuel, maintenance and liability, and transferees had only permissive use without effective control, so the arrangements were services, not deemed sales under VAT/sales tax.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Forfeiture of earnest-money deposits under SARFAESI rules stands as a statutory consequence, limiting equitable intervention.
    The analysis affirms that Rule 9(5) of the SARFAESI Rules prescribes an express statutory forfeiture of earnest-money deposits arising from auction terms, and that Sections 73 and 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, addressing contractual damages, do not apply to such statutory forfeitures. Unjust enrichment and equitable considerations cannot supplant a clear statutory forfeiture, and subsequent recovery by the secured creditor does not negate the forfeiture, except in narrowly defined exceptional circumstances where equity may justify relief.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Generality vs. enumeration principle affirms broad delegated rule making power, upholding rules that further an Act's statutory purposes.
    The Court held that Rule 9(3) is intra vires because the general delegated rule making power in section 29A(1) authorises rules that carry out the Act's purposes even when not covered by enumerated heads. Applying the generality vs. enumeration principle, the Court found the enumerated matters in section 29A(2) illustrative and not restrictive, and concluded Rule 9(3) furthers the misconduct chapter's object of maintaining ethical standards and preventing wrongful threshold dismissal of genuine complaints.
    Case LawsIncome 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 LawsIncome 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 LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Right to be heard: affected parties must receive documents underlying fraud allegations and be allowed inspection and rebuttal.
    Classification of a loan account as fraud invokes the Principles of Natural Justice, requiring disclosure of the documents forming the basis of a Show Cause Notice and inspection access to bank and Resolution Professional records so the affected party can identify required documents, receive copies, and submit a meaningful reply within specified timelines, with scope to request a personal hearing.
    Case LawsIncome 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 LawsIncome 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 LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit eligibility clarified: refund for unutilised ITC limited to inverted duty where input goods tax exceeds output supplies.
    The court construes Section 54(3) narrowly: refund of unutilised ITC for inverted duty arises only where tax on input goods exceeds tax on output supplies. It upholds the constitutional validity of Section 16(2)(c) and Section 16(4), confirms that ITC is subject to legislatively prescribed conditions and time limits, and clarifies that the non-obstante clause in Section 16(2) does not override separate restrictions such as Section 16(4). Affected petitioners may invoke circulars and have eligible ITC claims processed where returns met the prescribed extended filing position.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Determination of tax on unaccounted stock must proceed under Sections 73 and 74, not Section 130.
    The Court held that tax determination for excess or unaccounted stock discovered in a survey must proceed under the statutory assessment procedures for undisclosed goods rather than by invoking the survey provision. The assessment code prescribes the exclusive mechanism for quantifying and demanding tax, and survey powers cannot be used to supplant the prescribed steps for computation, notice and imposition of tax or penalty on unaccounted goods.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Record-keeping obligations: failure attracts a capped statutory penalty and invalidates arbitrary confiscation without due process.
    The judgment emphasises that registered persons must maintain prescribed books and electronic records under Section 35 and related rules, and that any determination of tax on unaccounted goods must follow the show cause procedures for assessing tax liability. It finds that conditions for confiscation under Section 130 were not met and that penalties must be imposed in accordance with the statutory bifurcation in Section 122, with the offences in question attracting only the capped penalty, thereby underscoring procedural limits on enforcement powers.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Limits on Article 142: extraordinary power cannot automatically vacate interim stays; natural justice and supervisory jurisdiction must be preserved.
    Limits on the Supreme Court's extraordinary jurisdiction were defined to prevent blanket, time based vacation of interim stays; equitable power cannot deprive non parties of substantive benefits or negate the right to be heard. The Court confined vacation rules to cases where interim relief was granted without notice, instructed High Courts to grant limited ad interim relief, prioritise vacation applications, avoid routine time bound disposal directives, and recognised that past automatic vacations that led to concluded trials raise finality concerns while endorsing judicial superintendence and natural justice as constitutional constraints.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Insolvency plan compliance: failure to acknowledge creditor claims or secure approvals undermines approved resolution plans.
    The court held that a recall application grounded in lack of notice and alleged misrepresentation is maintainable under principles of natural justice. It found the resolution plan non-compliant with Section 30(2) read with Regulations 37 and 38-specifically for failing to acknowledge a creditor's claim, misrecording the payable amount, omitting secured creditor classification despite a charge, and proposing use of third-party statutory land without necessary approvals-deficiencies that materially affected the plan's transparency and treatment of creditor classes.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Vicarious liability of directors clarified: specific averments required to link a director to company affairs before liability attaches.
    The Court held that vicarious liability of a director in cheque dishonour cases cannot be invoked by merely reproducing statutory language or alleging directorship; complaints must contain specific factual averments showing how the director was responsible for or in charge of the company's day to day affairs to link the director to issuance or dishonour of negotiable instruments.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Interim compensation discretion: courts must prima facie assess claims and defences before ordering payment under Section 143A.
    The Court interpreted Section 143A(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act as conferring a discretionary power to order interim compensation, holding that the word "may" cannot be read as mandatory. Courts must prima facie assess the complainant's case and the accused's defence; the presumption under section 139 alone does not suffice. Interim compensation may be directed only when a prima facie case is established, with the quantum determined after considering transaction nature, parties' relationship, and the accused's paying capacity, and brief reasons must be recorded.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay: courts require sufficient cause, balancing strict limitation rules with liberal remedial discretion.
    Principles of condonation of delay require balancing the Limitation Act's public policy against stale litigation: Section 3 is to be strictly interpreted while Section 5 is to be construed liberally to allow judicial discretion where sufficient cause is shown. Discretion remains limited by considerations such as inordinate delay, negligence, and lack of due diligence, and prior decisions granting condonation do not automatically justify relief unless the factual matrices are substantially similar.
    Case LawsIncome 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 LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Binding nature of departmental instructions vs natural justice: tribunals may prioritize procedural fairness over monetary thresholds.
    The CESTAT held that CBIC instructions bind departmental officers but do not bind courts and tribunals, which must safeguard natural justice. The Tribunal found the appellate order defective for failing to remit valuation reassessment to the proper officer as statutorily required, treated related Bills of Entry as a single transaction for monetary limit calculation, and invoked its procedural power to hear departmental appeals on merits despite the Board's monetary threshold.
    Case LawsIncome 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.

    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