Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

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

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

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

No Folders have been created

    +

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

    NOTE:

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

    TMI Notes

    Back

    All TMI Notes

    Showing Results for :
    Reset Filters
      No Records Found

      TMI Notes

      Back

      All TMI Notes

      whatsappJoin Channel
      Showing Results for : Reset Filters

      Comparison of Section 37 "Certain deductions allowed on actual payment basis only" 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 37 Certain deductions allowed on actual payment basis only.

      Income-tax Act, 2025 [As Passed]

      At a Glance

      This document compares Clause 37 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) with Section 37of the Income-tax Act, 2025 [As Passed]. Both provisions govern the timing of certain business deductions - making them allowable only on actual payment - and affect taxpayers carrying on business or profession, lenders/financial entities, employers and suppliers (including micro and small enterprises). The enacted version introduces targeted drafting changes and an additional definitional clause; effective date/commencement is Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: these provisions operate in the context of computing "income chargeable u/s 26" and interact with section 32(a), section 15 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, and section 263(1) (as referenced for due date of filing). The text sets out a non-exhaustive list of categories of sums which are deductible only in the tax year in which they are actually paid. Definitions provided in the text include "specified financial entities" (varying slightly between the versions) and, in the enacted version, an express definitional rule for "the sum payable" in relation to tax/duty/cess etc. The document does not state a legislative intent beyond the text. Not stated in the document: commencement/notification details, legislative debates or policy background beyond the provision itself.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Coverage: The provision mandates that specified sums (listed in sub-section (2)) that would otherwise qualify as deductions are allowable only in the tax year in which they are actually paid, irrespective of any contrary provision in the Act, the method of accounting, or the year in which liability was incurred. The enumerated categories include:

      • tax, duty, cess, surcharge or fee levied under any law;
      • employer contributions to provident, superannuation, gratuity or welfare funds;
      • amount payable by an employer in lieu of leave;
      • any sum referred to in section 32(a);
      • interest on loans/advances/borrowings from specified financial entities (differences in wording across versions noted below);
      • amount payable to Indian Railways for use of railway assets;
      • amount payable to micro or small enterprises beyond the time limit u/s 15 of the MSMED Act, 2006.

      The enacted text adds an express rule (sub-section (3)) allowing certain sums (other than those under clause (g)) to be treated as deductible in the tax year in which liability was incurred if actually paid on or before the due date of filing the return u/s 263(1) for that tax year. Sub-section (5) prevents double deduction where a deduction was already allowed when liability was incurred. Sub-section (6) excludes sums received by the assessee from employees as contributions as covered by section 2(49)(o).

      Interpretation

      The enacted provision clarifies several interpretive points not present in the Bill text. Notably, Section 37 (As Passed) expressly defines for sub-section (2)(a) that "the sum payable" means a sum for which the assessee has incurred liability in the tax year even if it was not payable in that year under relevant law - this clarifies the scope of clause (2)(a) (tax/duty/cess etc.) as to what counts as a "sum payable" for the section. The enacted version expands the language in the interest clause to refer to "loans or advances or borrowings" and adds the qualifying phrase "as per the terms and conditions of the agreement governing such loans or advances or borrowings," which signals an intent to tie deductibility strictly to the contractual terms governing payment obligations. The enacted definition of "specified financial entities" is more formal and specifies "such class of non-banking financial companies as may be notified by the Central Government," aligning with an administrative notification route.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Key carve-outs in the text:

      • Sub-section (3) provides an exception for sums (other than clause (g) amounts) paid after the tax year but on or before the due date for filing the return u/s 263(1) - allowing deduction in the earlier year.
      • Sub-section (4) (enacted) treats conversion of interest into a deferred instrument (loan, debenture or other) as not amounting to actual payment.
      • Sub-section (5) bars duplicate deduction where a deduction was already allowed in the year liability arose.
      • Sub-section (6) excludes employee contributions collected by the assessee for funds referred to in section 2(49)(o).

      Not stated in the document: any monetary thresholds, exemptions beyond the listed items, or transitional provisions for existing liabilities at enactment.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A company incurs a liability for stamp duty in March (tax year ending 31 March). The stamp duty is not paid until November of the following tax year. Under the enacted section, the duty will be deductible only in the year in which it is actually paid (November year), unless it is paid on or before the due date of filing the return u/s 263(1) for the earlier year - in which case sub-section (3) permits deduction in the earlier year. (Hypothetical dates consistent with the text.)

      • Example 2: Interest payable under a loan agreement with a scheduled bank is capitalised and converted into a debenture at year-end. Under sub-section (4) of the enacted text, that conversion will not be treated as actual payment and the deduction will not be available unless and until cash payment is made.

      • Example 3: An assessee fails to pay a supplier who is a micro enterprise within the MSMED Act time-limit; the amount paid thereafter falls under clause (g) and is deductible only when actually paid; sub-section (3) explicitly excludes clause (g) from the sub-section (3) early-payment carve-out.

      Interplay

      The provision explicitly ties into section 26 (computation of income), section 32(a) (capital allowances/depreciation - referred), section 15 of the MSMED Act (timelines for micro/small enterprise payments) and section 263(1) (used only to locate the return-filing due date). Not stated in the document: any cross-reference to accounting standards, tax accounting rules beyond the method-of-accounting override in sub-section (1), or implementing rules/circulars. Interaction with specific sections (e.g., procedural provisions for claims) is Not stated in the document.

      Differences Between Clause 37 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 and Section 37of the Income-tax Act, 2025

      • Inclusion of "advances" in interest clause (enacted): The Bill referred to "interest on loans or borrowings"; the enacted text expressly includes "loans or advances or borrowings" and adds the qualifier "as per the terms and conditions of the agreement governing such loans or advances or borrowings."
        • Practical impact: broader capture of financing arrangements (including advances) and a clear linkage to contractual payment provisions - reducing arguments that interest capitalised or documented differently falls outside the provision. Lenders and borrowers must check contracts: if payment is contractually deferred, the deduction waits until actual payment unless allowed by sub-section (3).
      • Addition of definitional clause for clause (2)(a) in enacted text (new sub-section (8)): The enacted section clarifies that for tax/duty/cess etc., "sum payable" includes sums where liability was incurred even if not payable in that year under relevant law.
        • Practical impact: clarifies what liabilities are considered "payable" for the purpose of the section, which reduces uncertainty about whether statutory levies with later payment windows fall within the scope. However, the central rule of actual-payment timing remains; this clause only clarifies liability incidence for clause (a).
      • Refinement of "specified financial entities" wording: The Bill uses "State Finance Corporation" and "notified class" phrasing; enacted text uses "State Financial Corporation" and "such class of non-banking financial companies as may be notified by the Central Government" and lists "a scheduled bank or a co-operative bank."
        • Practical impact: largely drafting/terminology precision with limited substantive change, but the enacted wording emphasises the Central Government's notification power to specify classes of NBFCs.
      • Expansion and precision of sub-section (4) in enacted text: The enacted clause refers to conversion of "interest on loans or advances or borrowings" into a deferred instrument and states it shall not be deemed actually paid.
        • Practical impact: prevents taxpayers from creating instruments to characterise unpaid interest as "paid" through conversion - the tax consequence is preserved until actual cash payment.
      • Minor drafting differences (tense and phrasing in sub-section (5)): The enacted text is marginally more formal ("when it is paid") than the Bill ("when paid").
        • Practical impact: negligible substantively.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Taxpayers must align accounting and tax positions to actual cash payments for the listed categories. Contracts that permit deferral or conversion of obligations will not give rise to immediate deductions; conversion of interest to debt instruments will not be treated as payment.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: Taxpayers should retain contractual documents (loan agreements, payment schedules), proof of payment (bank statements, receipts), employer contribution records, and correspondence with suppliers (notably micro/small suppliers) to substantiate the timing of actual payment. For clause (2)(a) liabilities, documentation proving the year liability was incurred will remain relevant due to the enacted definitional clarity.
      • Payments to micro and small enterprises: Because clause (g) is excluded from the sub-section (3) early-payment carve-out, delayed payments to MSME suppliers remain deductible only in the year of actual payment - increasing the tax cost of delayed supplier payments relative to some other categories.
      • Contract drafting: Lenders, borrowers and employers should review payment and capitalisation clauses to anticipate tax timing; central government notification powers over classes of NBFCs means market participants should monitor notifications.

      Key Takeaways

      • The enacted Section 37 preserves the core policy: certain deductions are allowable only on actual payment, overriding accounting methods and timing of liability.
      • Enacted text broadens and clarifies the interest clause to expressly cover "advances" and ties deductibility to contractual terms, constraining tax timing planning.
      • A new definitional rule clarifies what counts as a "sum payable" for tax/duty/cess, reducing uncertainty about levy liabilities that are not payable within the year.
      • Conversion of interest into deferred instruments is explicitly not treated as payment; taxpayers cannot convert unpaid interest into other instruments to claim deduction.
      • Payments to micro/small enterprises beyond MSMED timelines remain deductible only when actually paid and are excluded from the limited early-payment allowance under sub-section (3).
      • Administrative implication: monitoring of Central Government notifications (for NBFC classes) and careful contractual drafting will be important to manage timing of deductions.

      Full Text:

      Section 37 Certain deductions allowed on actual payment basis only.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax