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
    Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS to the Government
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    A Landmark Judgment on Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS ...
    A Case of Coerced Input Tax Credit Reversal - GST recovery during search and seizure proceedings.
    Manner of compliance of conditions of pre-deposit - Debit of amount from electronic credit ledger (E...
    The need for clarity and concrete reasons in the cancellation of GST registrations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of reopening of assessment - need for a direct link between the portal's information and th...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Application of provisions of section 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional release of imported goods (apples) - The dispute centers on the valuation of the import...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Applicability of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of expenses - need for tax authorities to have a practical understanding of the nature ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of the assessee's business expenditure claims related to the purchase of sugarcane from...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Additions made u/s 69 and Section 56 in the absence of direct incriminating evidence linking the ass...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Whether penalty is to be imposed when the appellant has accepted the classification and paid the ent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Liability for payment of customs duty on sale of excess liquor from the duty-free shop
    Case LawsCustoms
    Demand of customs duty beyond normal period of limitation on the ground of change in classification ...
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Stringent approach towards ensuring compliance with auditing standards - importance of auditors' res...
    Whether the appellant's claim can be classified as a Financial Debt or Operational Debt under the In...
    Scope of Approval of resolution plan - Allegations of undervaluation of the Corporate Debtor's asset...
    Denial of Input Tax Credit since the GST registration of the Supplier of Goods has been Cancelled wi...
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) is a vested right or concession - Can government impose conditions or restric...
❯❯
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
    TDS credit entitlement affirmed: deductee entitled to credit despite deductor's non-deposit, preventing indirect recovery.
    Credit for tax deducted at source on interest payments is to be treated as tax paid on the deductee's behalf and does not depend on the deductor's remittance; statutory protections against indirect recovery prevent the revenue from seeking the same tax from the deductee when the deductor fails to deposit the deducted amount, and the deposit requirement in the applicable provisions does not negate the deductee's entitlement to such credit.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tax credit for TDS: deductee entitled to credit even if deductor failed to deposit the retained tax with government.
    The Court treats amounts retained by a deductor as remaining tax and concludes the statutory credit mechanism for tax deducted at source does not condition a deductee's entitlement on the deductor having deposited the retained amount with the government, thereby barring indirect recovery or adjustment against the deductee where tax has been deducted at source.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Coercive tax collection prohibited; forced reversal of input tax credit during search deemed impermissible, with investigatory remedies preserved.
    Dispute involved a search under Section 67 and an alleged coerced reversal of Input Tax Credit from the petitioner's Electronic Credit Ledger for supplies from a supplier with retrospectively cancelled registration; the court found such coercive recovery during search impermissible and directed restoration of the ITC while preserving the department's power to investigate and, if ineligible or fraudulent ITC is found, pass appropriate protective orders.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Pre-deposit payment method: Electronic credit ledger debit does not satisfy pre-deposit; cash ledger payment required for appeals.
    Pre-deposit for appeals under the CGST/BGST regime must be paid from the cash ledger; debit from the electronic credit ledger does not satisfy the statutory pre-deposit requirement. A revenue circular restricting ECRL use to certain output tax payments and excluding reverse charge, interest, penalties, fees, and similar amounts supports that ECRL cannot be used for pre-deposit. The court emphasized the statutory payment scheme and strict appeal filing timelines, rejecting arguments that ECRL debit could substitute for cash ledger payment.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Requirement of clear reasons in GST cancellation: retrospective deregistration must be reasoned and consider input tax credit effects.
    Cancellation of GST registration must be supported by clear reasons and concrete factual findings in show cause notices and cancellation orders; labels that a registration is "liable to be cancelled" without specifying dues or factual basis constitute mechanical action. Retrospective cancellation cannot be applied routinely; authorities must follow statutory procedure, assess causes for non-filing, consider exceptional disruptions to business operations, and account for the impact on input tax credit before fixing an effective date of cancellation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Use of portal data: digital information needs a direct evidential link before reopening income tax assessments.
    Reopening assessments requires a direct evidential link between portal-derived information and the income alleged to have escaped assessment; portal data alone is insufficient without documentary support for transactions or gifts, and a show cause notice must provide adequate particulars and reflect proper consideration of the taxpayer's response before reassessment proceeds.
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Show AI Summary
    Non retrospective application of punitive benami provisions affirmed, limiting enforcement to post amendment transactions.
    Application of Section 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 concerns whether punitive provisions enacted in 2016 apply to transactions predating the amendment. The Appellate Tribunal relied on Supreme Court precedent that such punitive provisions must be applied prospectively, and the High Court emphasized adherence to that interpretation while allowing parties to pursue further remedies pending the Supreme Court review.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional release of perishable imports allowed pending valuation, subject to provisional assessment and bond to protect revenue interests.
    The dispute concerns provisional release of perishable imported apples amid a valuation contest tied to a stayed minimum import price notification. The instrument requires provisional assessment of the Bill of Entry within a brief timeframe and permits conditional provisional release upon the importer furnishing a bond and meeting terms set by customs, thereby reconciling the protection of revenue interests with the practical need to avoid loss to perishable consignments pending final resolution of the notification's applicability.
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Show AI Summary
    Prospective application of punitive benami amendment upheld, limiting reach to post-enactment transactions and preserving pre-enactment protections.
    The Madras High Court affirmed that the enhanced punitive provision introduced by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 is substantive and applies prospectively; it endorsed the Tribunal's reliance on the Supreme Court's Ganapati Dealcom decision, treated a pending Supreme Court review petition as not displacing that precedent, and disposed of the appeals while allowing further proceedings consistent with prospectivity and prior constitutional findings.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Disallowance of expenses must rest on specific documentation defects, not on blanket percentage adjustments.
    Disallowance of business expenses on a summary or estimate basis requires specific, pointed deficiencies and cannot rest on generalized conclusions about excessiveness; in businesses with routine small transactions, tax authorities must examine the nature of operations and identify particular defects in documentation before applying blanket percentage disallowances.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Statutory Minimum Price interpretation: excess cane payments treated as appropriation of profits, not deductible business expense.
    The core issue is whether payments for sugarcane in excess of the Statutory Minimum Price (SMP) are deductible business expenditures or constitute an appropriation of profits. The Assessing Officer relied on standard accounting practice requiring provisions for liabilities at year end and treated post closing excess payments as distributions of operational surplus. The appellate view upheld that cooperative status does not alter the tax analysis and that payments beyond the SMP do not qualify as allowable business expenses absent proper provisioning within the accounting period.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Direct incriminating evidence requirement: third party search materials alone cannot sustain unexplained investment additions.
    Additions alleged as unexplained investments and undisclosed interest income based on third party search materials require a demonstrable direct nexus between those seized records and the assessee; absent such direct incriminating evidence, reliance on third party statements or documents is insufficient. Procedural safeguards and transactional indicia-such as cross examination opportunities, banking records, documentary support, and TDS-reduce the probative value of seized material when direct linkage is lacking.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty under Section 114A: no justification where importer accepted correct classification and paid differential duty before notice.
    Issue: imposition of a penalty for alleged suppression when the importer accepted correct tariff classification and paid the differential duty with interest before issuance of a show cause notice. The importer attributed the earlier misclassification to an agent error and denied intent to evade duty. The authority observed the accurate product description, admission of correct classification and prompt payment, concluded absence of suppression of facts and determined that the statutory penalty provision was not justified on these facts.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Liability under Section 72: duty rests with duty-free shop licence-holder when trade facility conditions are breached.
    Duty arises where a duty-free shop licence-holder breaches voucher and recordkeeping conditions under the trade facility; the licence-holder bears responsibility for payment of duty and interest when procedural requirements are violated, while penalty depends on culpability and may be disallowed where no intent to evade duty is established and customs were aware of the transactions.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Extended limitation in customs demands inapplicable where no suppression, limiting reassessment for CVD on undeclared MRP entries.
    Reassessment and CVD demand arose from a post-clearance change in classification and retrospective reliance on MRP for past entries; the tribunal held that items described were essential refrigeration parts rather than accessories, that MRP-based reassessment requires clear factual basis, and that the Extended Period of Limitation is inapplicable where no suppression is established, although penalty issues may still be considered where omissions occur.
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Auditor responsibility reinforced: regulatory findings against audit failures stress strict adherence to auditing standards and sanctions.
    NFRA found a statutory auditor guilty of professional misconduct for failures to comply with Standards on Auditing, including inadequate procedures to verify revenue, lack of physical inventory verification, insufficient going concern assessment, deficient materiality application, and inadequate communication with Those Charged with Governance, and applied regulatory sanctions to reinforce auditor responsibilities in preserving financial reporting integrity.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Operational debt classification confirmed for supplier's claim based on the transaction's nature under the insolvency framework.
    Whether a claim from a supply arrangement is a Financial Debt or an Operational Debt depends on the transaction's substantive character. The tribunal examined contractual terms-penalties for non-delivery, interest, and security cheques-and applied precedents on the financial-versus-operational distinction. It characterised the supplier's claim, filed under Section 9, as arising from the supply of goods and therefore as an operational debt, sustaining the Resolution Professional's and Adjudicating Authority's classification.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Commercial wisdom of committee of creditors governs resolution plan approval, limiting valuation and standing challenges by promoters.
    Exclusion of the creditor was non irregular as no claim was filed; undervaluation allegations were rejected since opportunities to raise them during the CIRP were not used; the resolution plan satisfied Committee approval requirements and reflected the Committee's commercial wisdom; and a suspended director/promoter lacked standing to challenge the approved plan, underscoring limited judicial interference post approval.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input tax credit denial over supplier deregistration; remanded for document verification and fresh adjudication to determine genuineness.
    Denial of Input Tax Credit was challenged where the supplier's registration was retrospectively cancelled; the petitioner paid through bank and the supplier appeared on records at the time. The High Court remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, directing the appellate authority to reconsider the petitioner's documentary evidence, hold a hearing, and pass a reasoned order verifying genuineness and timing of transactions; if purchases are genuine and occurred prior to cancellation, ITC is to be considered per precedent.
    Act RulesGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit as legislative concession: entitlement subject to statutory conditions, but retrospective deprivation of vested accruals is vulnerable.
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) is a legislative concession, not a vested right, so the legislature may lawfully prescribe eligibility conditions and procedural limits which taxpayers must strictly satisfy; however, retrospective amendments that destroy or diminish an already accrued entitlement are susceptible to challenge and have been treated as impermissible when they impair rights that vested before the amendment.

    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