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
    The Legal Contours of Input Tax Credit Eligibility: Procedural Aspects of GST and ITC
    Case LawsService Tax
    Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM): Service Tax Implications for Exporters: A Legal Perspective on Forei...
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Cheque Dishonour and Corporate Responsibility: Analyzing the Supreme Court's Latest Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Notices / orders without DIN. The Critical Role of Procedural Compliance in Tax Administ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Tax Exemptions: Capitation Fees in Educational Institutions: A Legal Quagmire
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Procedural Technicalities vs. Substantive Justice in Tax Administration: A High Court Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revision u/s 263 and denial of deduction u/s 80IA: A Critical Analysis of the Delhi High Court's Jud...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Condonation of Delay and Jurisdictional Challenges: A Case Analysis of ITAT Kolkata's Decision
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Legal Analysis: Scrutiny of Share Capital and Premium Under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Judicial Scrutiny of Retrospective Cancellation of Charitable Trust Registration: A Case Analysis of...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Office and Prosecution under Income Tax Act: Jurisdiction of Trial Court - Decision in a High Profil...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxation of Unexplained Income at Higher Rate of tax u/s 115BBE : A Comprehensive Analysis of the IT...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Analysis of ITAT Mumbai Judgment - Transfer Pricing Adjustment Dispute: Period of limitation u/s 144...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    In-Depth Analysis of Key Issues in the ITAT Chennai Judgement
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Doctrine of Merger in Income Tax Assessment: An Analysis of ITAT Chennai's Recent Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Delay in refund processing, the petitioner's entitlement to interest, and the court's decision to gr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Rejection of revision application u/s 264 in favor of assessee: A beneficial provision of Income Tax...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    An Analysis of ITAT Decision on International Taxation, Capital Gains, and DTAA
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxability of CSR fund: Treatment of certain funds received by an entity, particularly focusing on w...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Legal Analysis of ESOP Deduction and allowability in the Revised Return of income: An ITAT decision.
❯❯
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 LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit eligibility: procedural limits on reversing claims without supplier inquiry and GSTR-2A non-reflection not dispositive.
    Section 16(2) sets the statutory conditions for Input Tax Credit-tax invoice, receipt, tax payment, and return filing-and GSTR-2A serves only as a facilitator; non-reflection there does not automatically negate eligibility. Tax authorities must inquire into supplier conduct and observe procedural safeguards before reversing ITC or recovering tax from the recipient, with judicial precedents and CBIC clarifications shaping when exceptions may apply.
    Case LawsService Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reverse charge mechanism: exporter not liable for foreign bank charges when Indian bank is the direct service recipient.
    The core issue is whether an exporter is liable under the Reverse Charge Mechanism for foreign bank charges deducted from export proceeds when those charges are imposed on and paid by an Indian intermediary bank. The Tribunal's analysis focuses on the definition of service recipient and territorial scope, concluding that the direct recipient-the Indian bank-is the party liable to discharge service tax while the exporter, as an indirect beneficiary without direct dealings with the foreign bank, is not subject to reverse charge.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Directorial liability: strict averment requirement prevents presuming directors' responsibility without specific allegation, leading to quashing.
    The Court held that directorial liability requires specific averment that the director was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the time of the offence; mere titular position or awareness of cheque issuance is insufficient. It emphasized the necessity of serving the statutory notice prerequisite and rejected liberal construction to cure absent statutory averments, quashing proceedings against directors for non-compliance.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    DIN requirement in tax administration: absence of mandatory DIN can invalidate assessment orders unless exceptional circumstances apply.
    Failure to quote the mandatory computer-generated Document Identification Number (DIN) in assessment orders, as required by the CBDT Circular from 1 October 2019, constitutes a procedural defect that can render the order invalid unless the revenue demonstrates that the issuance fell within the Circular's narrowly drawn exceptional circumstances; the Tribunal found such non-compliance in the order dated 15 October 2019 and the High Court affirmed, while the Supreme Court granted interim stay for further consideration.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Capitation fee allegations challenge admissibility and attribution of seized evidence in charitable trust tax exemption inquiries.
    Alleged collection of capitation fees by a registered charitable trust threatens its exemption under Section 11; most evidence was seized from employees' residences, invoking the presumption under Section 132(4A) and raising attribution issues. Employee admissions later retracted, similar statement drafting, declarations under the Income Declaration Scheme 2016, and trustees' acknowledgments create contradictory evidentiary threads that complicate admissibility, credibility, and whether the seized funds can be treated as trust income.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay in tax compliance: liberal interpretation protects bona fide taxpayers from technical disqualification.
    The court analysed whether delay in filing Form 10 could be condoned, considering the petitioner's unawareness of post 2016 amendments, CBDT circulars and precedent, and applying principles that each case be judged on its facts; it stressed that failure to claim accumulation does not by itself show absence of intent to comply and urged a liberal approach to mitigate genuine hardship and prevent procedural technicalities from defeating substantive justice.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Section 263 limited to substantial legal errors; mere differences of opinion don't justify revisional tax action.
    Scope of Section 263 is confined to instances where an assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to revenue in a substantial way, not mere differences of opinion. Migration of licences from IP VPN to NLD ILD does not, by itself, create a new undertaking defeating entitlement to deduction under Section 80IA(4)(ii), particularly where identical deductions were previously allowed; administrative migration requires clear proof of substantive change before re characterising eligibility.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Delay condonation based on sufficient cause upheld where illness, relocation and pandemic disruption justified late filing and jurisdictional challenge.
    The tribunal applied a purposive construction of sufficient cause to condone substantial delay where cumulative factors-serious illness, change of residence and pandemic disruption-made filing untimely. It also found the assessment infirm for want of territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction because the taxpayer had established residence and filing history in a different territorial unit and administrative guidance allocated jurisdiction accordingly, underscoring that proper vesting of authority is a condition precedent to valid assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Unexplained cash credits under Section 68 require taxpayers to prove investor identity and genuineness; authorities must rebut with evidence.
    Applicability of Section 68 requires the assessee to establish investor identity, creditworthiness and transaction genuineness-via PAN, tax returns, audited accounts and bank statements-and once this initial burden is satisfied, the burden shifts to the revenue to rebut with concrete evidence; mere suspicion or inability to trace an ultimate source does not alone justify additions if investments are reasonable relative to investors' net worth and effected through banking channels.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Retrospective cancellation of charitable trust registration invalidated due to lack of competent jurisdiction and procedural non compliance.
    The Tribunal invalidated the cancellation of a charitable trust's registration because the regional authority lacked competence to cancel under the statutory scheme and the transfer used to reassign the matter was improper; it further held that applying the newer cancellation provision retrospectively to deprive the trust of its recognized status was not legally tenable, emphasizing required notice, hearing and adherence to principled statutory interpretation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdiction in multi locational offences governs venue determination; magistrate discretion and supervisory thresholds shape tax prosecution forums under criminal procedure.
    The judgment analyses Cr.P.C. place of offence principles in multi locational tax prosecutions, assessing whether procedural acts like recording statements under the Income Tax Act determine venue. It evaluates the magistrate's discretion in taking cognizance where alleged offences span jurisdictions and outlines the threshold for superior court supervisory intervention, emphasising that extraordinary petitions require demonstration of abuse of process or exceptional circumstances before altering magistrate venue determinations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Taxation of unexplained income: higher-rate treatment applies, and deductions including partner salary are disallowed.
    The tribunal held that excess unrecorded stock and cash found on survey were assessable as unexplained investment and unexplained money, and that the special higher-rate taxation provision applies to such income, taxing it at a higher fixed rate and disallowing any deduction; consequently the claimed partner's salary relating to the unexplained investment was disallowed.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation under section 144C: assessment issued beyond statutory period, leaving transfer pricing adjustment unresolved on procedural grounds.
    The tribunal focused on the statutory time limit under Section 144C(13) for passing assessment orders after DRP directions, treated the order as barred by limitation and therefore did not adjudicate substantive transfer pricing challenges raised under Section 92CA. Consequently, technical disputes over comparability, exclusion/inclusion of comparables, and the profit level indicator computation were left unexamined.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Capitalization of interest: tribunal scrutinised whether interest and forex on capital projects form capital cost or permit revenue deduction.
    The tribunal analyzed four core taxation questions: whether interest and foreign exchange fluctuations written off from Capital Work in Progress are capital or revenue in nature and their nexus to business operations; whether write off of a DG set component should be treated within the block of assets for depreciation or as a revenue repair; the applicability of Section 36(1)(iii) to proportionate interest on interest free advances to related concerns and the presumption from mixed funds; and the evidentiary requirements to establish that inter corporate deposits were funded from own funds rather than borrowed monies for interest deduction purposes.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Doctrine of merger limits revisional jurisdiction under appeals, preventing collateral review of identical legal issues.
    The Doctrine of Merger operates to treat legal issues from an assessment as merged into appeal proceedings before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), thereby constraining subsequent revisional jurisdiction over those same issues; applied where initial assessment, reassessment notices and search-related assessment steps overlap, and supported by judicial precedent limiting collateral revision.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Interest on delayed tax refunds where delay is not attributable to the taxpayer under Section 244A.
    Entitlement to interest under Section 244A arises when refund payment is delayed for reasons not attributable to the assessee. The petitioner, a foreign company, faced delays caused by technical issues and incorrect guidance regarding banking details; the court treated the delay as the respondents' responsibility and applied Section 244A to award interest for the period of delay, directing payment according to the statutory rate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revision application under Section 264: remand for fresh merits review when alternative remedies were improperly relied upon.
    Whether a revision under Section 264 may be denied solely because alternative remedies existed and whether appeal provisions applied to DDT-related treaty claims; the court found that rejecting revision on the mere availability of other remedies was untenable and that the appealed provision was inapplicable, directing fresh merits consideration of treaty relief and related tax computation by the Principal Commissioner.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    DTAA interpretation clarifies capital gains tax treatment for cross-border share sales under residency and grandfathering conditions.
    Taxation of capital gains from a Mauritius-based entity's sale of Indian company shares is analysed against the India-Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, focusing on DTAA allocation of taxing rights, timing of acquisition and transfer, and applicability of grandfathering provisions. The Tribunal assessed tax residency and treaty entitlement by examining corporate structure and commercial substance, applying the substance over form principle to determine whether treaty benefits were appropriate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Fiduciary funds not treated as taxable income when entity acts as facilitator; earmarked project funds excluded from income.
    The Tribunal examined whether earmarked receipts should be included in taxable income or treated on the balance sheet, focusing on jurisdictional validity of scrutiny notices, whether amounts were routed through the income and expenditure account or retained as earmarked funds, and whether receipts held in a fiduciary capacity for disaster relief were excluded from the entity's income because the entity acted only as facilitator without beneficial ownership.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    ESOP deduction in revised returns - tribunal permits claim within revision window, stressing valuation, timing and documentary consistency.
    Deductibility of ESOP-related costs in a revised return hinges on compliance with the statutory time limit for revision and on accounting and evidentiary consistency: correct year of recognition, reliable grant date valuation (e.g., Black Scholes), concordant employee records, and disclosure in audited accounts. The tribunal found the claim allowable within the revision window but emphasised documentary proof, valuation method and timing of liability as central to acceptability.

    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