Loading...

⚠ ✕
❮ 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 characters 0/2000
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 ✕
🔎 Filters / Advanced Search ❯
TEXT

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.
Relevance Default Date
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Retrospective Amendments and the Doctrine of Vested Rights: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Upholding Equality: HC Strikes Down Discriminatory Circular on Charitable Trust Approvals
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Judicial Review of Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) Orders: Navigating the Boundaries
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Assessee's Lackadaisical Conduct Leads to Dismissal of Income Tax Appeal
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Appeal Scheme: Lessons from the Judgement on Delayed Filing and Deduction u/...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Unraveling the Maze of Round-Tripping: The Doctrine of "Source of Source" in Share Capital Transacti...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Upholding the Transfer of Assessment Proceedings u/s 127: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Share Premium Addition u/s 68: Demystifying Share Premium Transactions
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Intricacies of Income Tax Penalty u/s 271(1)(c): Fairness in Tax Administration
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Scope and Limitations under Income Tax Act
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of Search and Seizure Assessments: Unraveling the Intricacies of Section...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interpreting Section 80G Provisions: ITAT's Stance on Charitable Institution Registration
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interpreting the Scope and Limits of Sections 153A and 153C: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Section 153C and the Necessity of AO's Satisfaction: A Detailed Judicial Analysis
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Royalty or Business Income? High Court Clarifies Taxation of Remittances against Software Purchase
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Complexities
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Faceless Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment: Validity of Notice Issued by the Jurisdictional A...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Court Upholds Deduction for Operational Hotel under Section 35AD Despite Administrative Delays
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Landmark Ruling: Leasing Businesses Entitled to Depreciation Benefits
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Court Decision on Convertible Debentures Expenses : Revenue or Capital Expenditure?
❮
❯
❯❯
Maximize Maximize Maximize
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 Summaries Hide All Summaries
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Vested rights preserved against retrospective tax amendments; filings made before enactment remain effective for settlement consideration.
The court addressed whether a retrospective Finance Act amendment prohibiting settlement applications from a specified date could divest a taxpayer who filed earlier of its vested right to have the application considered. It held that retrospective legislation cannot take away rights already accrued by actions completed before enactment unless clearly intended; that section 119 confers time-extension power but cannot impose new substantive eligibility conditions; and that administrative delay by revenue does not justify denying access where an application was already filed.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Reasonable classification principle: differential deadline for charitable trust tax recognition cannot lack rational basis or equality protection.
A departmental circular extended a filing deadline for tax recognition to mitigate hardship but excluded newly formed charitable trusts without offering reasons; the exclusion lacked an intelligible differentia and rational nexus to the circular's object, making the differential treatment arbitrary and ultra vires the constitutional guarantee of equality, requiring the excluded applications to be treated as within time and decided on merits.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
ITSC jurisdiction extends beyond application disclosures, while full and true disclosure and narrow judicial review govern settlement oversight.
The Income Tax Settlement Commission may inquire into and decide issues disclosed in the application and any other matters relating to the case as reflected in the Commissioner's report or uncovered by further inquiry; full and true disclosure is mandatory and amendments or contradictory positions that undermine that requirement are impermissible, yet contesting taxability before the Commission does not automatically negate disclosure; judicial review is limited to statutory contravention, prejudice, fraud, bias or malice, while sufficiency of materials placed before the Commission is generally beyond routine court scrutiny.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Delay condonation denied where litigant's evasive conduct and non participation failed to constitute sufficient cause for appeal filing.
The court refused condonation of delay for filing an appeal where a best judgment assessment treated cash bank deposits as unexplained after the assessee failed to file returns or participate in proceedings; reliance on transition to a faceless e filing regime and lack of alerts was held insufficient, as the assessee's evasive and habitual non participation did not amount to sufficient cause warranting condonation under the applicable doctrine.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Sufficient cause for delay in filing appeals rejected where faceless scheme migration did not excuse prolonged inaction.
The court held that migration to a faceless appeal system did not, without persuasive evidence, constitute sufficient cause to condone a lengthy delay in filing an appeal, finding the explanation reflective of litigant inaction rather than unavoidable impediment. On tax deduction, the court applied authority that a non-obstante clause does not negate the employer's obligation to deposit employees' statutory contributions by the due date as a condition for claiming the deduction, and treated the appeal as meritless and barred by limitation.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Source of source doctrine used to pierce the corporate veil where share capital appears round tripped among related entities.
The assessee must prove identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of investors under section 68; examination extends to the true origin of funds where bank records show circular transfers, related party directorships, lack of business operations, and arbitrary share premium, permitting lifting the corporate veil and application of the source of source doctrine to treat such receipts as not satisfactorily explained.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Transfer of assessment proceedings for coordinated investigations and administrative convenience upheld where procedural safeguards and factual links exist.
The judgment explains that transfers of assessment proceedings pursuant to the statutory transfer power may be justified for coordinated enquiries and administrative convenience, provided the decision is not capricious or mala fide. Authorities must afford an opportunity to be heard and consider objections; where factual indicia exist - for example, disclosed transactions such as unsecured loans with searched persons - centralisation can be sustained. The convenience of the assessee is relevant but subservient to effective adjudication and tax collection, and transfers supported by procedural compliance and factual nexus are not arbitrary.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Burden of proof in share premium cases: failure to prove investor identity and genuineness sustains addition under section 68.
The assessment of share premium under section 68 requires the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of investors who subscribe at a premium. The court scrutinised disparate allotments made on consecutive days, examined subscribing companies' financials, and applied the doctrine of "source of source" restrictively, holding that incorporation papers or bank payments alone do not discharge the burden. Absent cogent evidence tracing funds to lawful origin and demonstrating commercial rationale for large premiums, additions under section 68 are supportable.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Strict construction of penalty provisions prevents penalty where taxpayer disclosed omitted income before assessment notice.
The legal focal point is whether Section 271(1)(c) can be invoked where an assessee disclosed omitted income and paid differential tax before initiation of reassessment. Penal provisions require strict construction, and Explanation 1 treats a pre-notice satisfactory explanation and admission of additional income as accepted, precluding characterization as concealment. Additionally, a penalty notice must specify the particular ground for proceeding; failure to do so renders the notice defective and undermines the basis for penalty.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Scope of reassessment: AO may address newly noticed income but remains constrained by the recorded reasons for reopening.
Where the AO has recorded reasons to believe income escaped assessment, the AO may assess or reassess issues that come to notice during reassessment, but if no additions or modifications are ultimately made in respect of the issues that formed the basis for reopening, the AO cannot make additions or modifications relating solely to other matters that were part of the original assessment. Explanation 3 applies only after reassessment power is validly invoked and cannot be used to deviate from or supplant the recorded reasons.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Corroboration requirement for search statements: unsupported search statements cannot sustain additions without linked incriminating material and fair cross examination.
Additions for alleged accommodation entries cannot rest solely on statements recorded during search operations; such statements require corroboration by material found in the search that is specifically linked to the assessee. The assessing officer must articulate a factual nexus between seized group material and the assessee, and procedural fairness-including provision of relevant statements and opportunity for cross-examination-is essential. Cure provisions do not validate jurisdictional defects arising from absence of requisite notice or lack of incriminating material.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Registration under Section 80G: provisional approval permits subsequent final registration regardless of prior commencement of activities.
The Tribunal held that institutions granted provisional approval under the First Proviso to Section 80G(5) are entitled to apply for final registration under the proviso's final-registration clause, and that the relevant date of commencement is to be counted from activities undertaken after grant of provisional registration; a prior commencement of activities before provisional grant cannot alone justify rejection of a final-approval application.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Search assessment provisions under Sections 153A and 153C override ordinary reassessment time limits; asset-threshold verification required.
The judgment holds that search-triggered assessment provisions function as non-obstante clauses displacing ordinary reassessment time limits, distinguishes the enduring liability to tax from the temporal right to assess, prescribes that block periods are computed from the year of search (or date of receipt of seized records for non-searched persons), and treats the asset-represented income threshold as a mandatory, aggregable precondition requiring the assessing officer's recorded satisfaction.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Seized-material nexus under Section 153C: AO must form reasoned satisfaction before reopening assessments for specific years.
Section 153C requires the Assessing Officer to form a reasoned satisfaction that seized material during a search has a bearing on an assessee's total income before initiating assessments; mere discovery is insufficient, and the AO must identify specific assessment years, map incriminating material year-wise, and record reasons to justify abatement or reopening.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Royalty classification of software payments: remittances for software purchases are not treated as royalty under established precedent.
Where distribution agreements or End User License Agreements do not grant any proprietary interest or a right to use copyright, payments for acquiring computer software are not to be characterised as royalty; this conclusion follows controlling precedent and DTAA considerations and renders an Assessing Officer's contrary classification inconsistent with the correct legal interpretation.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Reopening assessments: procedural compliance and substantive escapement requirements determine validity of reassessment notices.
The judgment examines validity of notices under Section 148, holding that TOLA does not apply retrospectively for the assessment year at issue and notices issued after the statutory cutoff cannot be back-dated. Notices barred by the limitation in Section 149(1) are ineffective. Procedural prerequisites - notably issuance of a Document Identification Number and issuance through automated allocation by the faceless centre rather than direct action by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer - are mandatory. Substantively, reopening requires escapement of income in the form of an asset, expenditure, transaction, event, or book entry; a mere change of opinion or dispute over an ordinarily allowed deduction does not meet that threshold.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Faceless assessment: issuance of section 148 reopening notices by jurisdictional assessing officers inconsistent with faceless regime.
The faceless assessment framework under Section 151A and the Scheme dated 29 March 2022 allocates exclusive jurisdiction to either the Faceless Assessment Officer or the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for issuance of reopening notices and assessments; actions by an authority outside its assigned jurisdiction are inconsistent with the faceless regime and cause prejudice to the taxpayer as a matter of law.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Deduction eligibility for operational hotels affirmed despite administrative delay in star classification, focusing on substantive compliance.
The court addressed entitlement to a deduction under Section 35AD(5)(aa) where a hotel began operations and generated income in the relevant year and a timely application for star classification was submitted, but formal certification was delayed due to administrative inspections; the court applied a purposive construction to allow the deduction when substantive operational conditions were satisfied and delay was not the assessee's fault.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Depreciation entitlement for leasing companies where contractual ownership and business use are established, allowing higher depreciation rates.
A lessor retains entitlement to depreciation where lease terms demonstrate exclusive ownership rights, repossession power, return obligations and inspection rights, and where the asset is used in the course of the lessor's leasing business; actual physical use by the lessor is not required. Leasing activity that functionally equates to hiring can qualify assets for an enhanced rate of depreciation despite registration in the lessee's name.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Revenue classification of debenture issuance expenses upheld as revenue expenditure despite later conversion into equity.
Expenses incurred to issue convertible debentures that are raised to provide working capital are to be treated as revenue expenditure because classification depends on the purpose and usage of the expenditure, and future conversion into shares does not change its revenue character.

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

Showing Results for :
Reset Filters
No Records Found

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

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

Acts Income Tax