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 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