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 58 "Special provision for computing profits and gains of business or profession on presumptive basis in case of certain residents" between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

      29 August, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Section 58 Special provision for computing profits and gains of business or profession on presumptive basis in case of certain residents.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      These documents present two texts: Section 58 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 (final/statutory version) and Clause 58 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (old version). Both establish presumptive taxation rules for certain resident taxpayers carrying on small businesses, goods-carriage operations and certain professions. The differences between the Bill (old) and the final Section are limited but material for compliance and computation. Affected parties include eligible individuals, HUFs and firms (excluding LLPs), small transport operators and specified professionals. Effective date or enactment date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: references to sections 26 to 54 (computation rules generally), section 62 and section 63 (books, accounts and audit) and cross-references to Chapter VIII-C and Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008. Both texts set out a Table specifying (A) type of business/profession; (B) eligible assessee; (C) turnover/gross receipts limits; and (D) manner of computation (presumptive percentages or specified rates). The texts provide definitional material on "eligible assessee", "specified assessee", "limited liability partnership", and vehicle terminology drawn from the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Any other definitions or explanations: Not stated in the document.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Both instruments create a special presumptive computation regime and exclude sections 26-54 to the extent contrary. They apply to three categories in the Table: (1) Any business other than goods carriage; (2) Business of plying, hiring or leasing goods carriage; and (3) Specified profession/Any profession as referred in section 62 provisions. The regime deems prescribed percentages or specified amounts to be the profits chargeable to tax unless the taxpayer opts to claim actual profits (and then certain conditions apply).

      Interpretation

      Legislative intent as indicated by text: to provide a simpler presumptive basis for computing profits of small taxpayers (business, transport and certain professions), to limit applicability by setting turnover/gross receipts thresholds and to curtail allowance of separate deductions or losses against the presumptive income. The text signals an intent to differentiate receipts realised by banking/online mode from other modes for business (serial no.1) in the final Section. Any further legislative intent or policy background: Not stated in the document.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Key carve-outs and conditions set out in the text:

      • Where taxpayer claims lower actual profit than presumptive amount and total income exceeds basic exemption limit, books must be maintained and accounts audited (sections 62 & 63) - both texts contain this obligation, though cross-references differ slightly in bracketed subsections in the Bill.
      • No loss, allowance or deduction under the Act is permitted against income computed under the presumptive clause (final Section sub-sec (4); Bill sub-sec (4) uses reference to sub-sec (1) - see differences below).
      • Serial no.2 (goods carriage): in the final Section salary and interest to partners in a firm shall be deductible subject to section 35(e); the Bill uses section 35(f) - difference in cross-reference noted below.
      • Written down value for depreciation computed as if depreciation had been claimed and allowed (both texts contain this rule).
      • Anti-avoidance through denial of benefit for five years if eligible assessee declares profit contrary to subsection (1) for any of five succeeding years (both texts contain a similar restriction).
      • Receipt by non-account-payee cheque/bank draft treated as cash for purposes of cash-limit tests (both texts contain this rule).

      Illustrations

      • Example 1 (business other than goods carriage): An eligible assessee with turnover of Rs. 1.8 crore received 90% by specified banking/online mode and 10% otherwise - under the final Section the presumptive income will be the higher of (A) aggregate of (i) 6% of total turnover or gross receipts which is received by specified banking or online mode during the tax year or before the due date specified in section 263(1) in respect of that tax year; (ii) 8% of total turnover or gross receipts as reduced by turnover covered in (i); or (B) actual profit claimed. Concrete numeric computation: Not stated in the document.

      • Example 2 (goods carriage): Owner of one heavy goods vehicle owned for 6 months: presumptive income component would be Rs.1,000 per ton of gross vehicle weight (or unladen weight as applicable) multiplied by months owned - exact tonnage and resulting sum: Not stated in the document.

      Interplay

      Both texts reference sections 62 and 63 (books and audit). The final Section expressly excludes applicability of sections 62 and 63 insofar as they relate to the goods-carriage business for monetary limit computations (sub-sec (10)). The Bill has similar references but bracketed cross-references differ (section 62(2) in Bill). Interaction with Chapter VIII-C and section 144 is controlled through conditions defining "eligible assessee" - the final Section uses section 144 and Bill uses section 141 - see differences below. Any further interactions with Rules/Notifications/Circulars: Not stated in the document.

      Differences Between the Two Texts and Practical Impact

      TopicClause 58 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (old version)Section 58 of the Income-tax Act, 2025
      Reference to cash/banking receipts computation (serial no.1)Presumptive split stated as "(i) 6% realised in specified banking or online mode; and (ii) 8% realised in any mode other than specified banking or online mode."

      Final text phrases percentages as (i) "6% of total turnover or gross receipts which is received by specified banking or online mode during the tax year or before the due date specified in section 263(1) in respect of that tax year; (ii) 8% of total turnover or gross receipts as reduced by the turnover or gross receipts covered in (i)."

      Practical impact: clarifies timing (before due date u/s 263(1)) and frames calculation as aggregate components rather than separate buckets - may affect timing of receipt recognition for percentage split.

      Cross-reference for professions (serial no.3)Refers to "Any profession as referred to in section 62(1)(a)" and defines "specified profession" accordingly.

      Final Section refers to "Specified profession as referred to in section 62(4)."

      Practical impact: narrows or shifts the definitional source - this may change which professions are captured depending on final sectioning of section 62; practitioners must check section 62's numbering in enacted Act.

      Definition of "eligible assessee" - earlier deduction conditionBill: excludes those who "has not claimed any deduction u/s 141;"

      Final Section: excludes those who "has not claimed any deduction u/s 144;"

      Practical impact: substantive difference depending on content of sections 141 vs 144 (which are not provided). This alters who qualifies as eligible assessee; taxpayers must verify which section was intended in final enactment.

      Cross-reference for deduction in goods carriage (salary/interest to partners)Bill references section 35(f).

      Final Section references section 35(e).

      Practical impact: differing cross-references change applicable conditions and limits for partner salary/interest deduction when computing income for firms in goods-carriage business; the precise effect depends on content of section 35(e)/(f).

      Application/exclusion of sections 62 and 63 for goods carriageBill: does not have an explicit sub-sec equivalent to final Section (10) wording; it has a provision in sub-sec (10) stating "In this section, --" and then definitions; wording differs.

      Final Section sub-sec (10) expressly states sections 62 and 63 shall not apply insofar as they relate to the goods-carriage business and that gross receipts/income from that business shall be excluded in computing monetary limits under those sections.

      Practical impact: provides clearer statutory exclusion for goods-carriage business from book-keeping/audit monetary limits, which affects compliance thresholds.

      Practical Implications

      • Taxpayers must verify which professions/businesses fall within "specified" definitions by reference to the enacted section 62 numbering, as the Bill and final Section cite different sub-sections.
      • Receipts realised by specified banking/online mode have a timing qualifier in the final Section (receipt during tax year or before due date u/s 263(1)), which can affect whether a receipt counts towards the preferential 6% computation - practitioners should ensure receipts are processed in that timeframe to secure the favourable computation.
      • Firm owners in goods-carriage business must check whether partner salary/interest deduction is governed by section 35(e) (final) or 35(f) (Bill) and apply the relevant limits accordingly; this may change taxable income for such firms.
      • The final Section's express exclusion of sections 62 and 63 for the goods-carriage business in computing monetary limits reduces the risk of triggering audit/book-keeping thresholds by aggregating such receipts - but requires careful reading to apply exclusions correctly.
      • Record-keeping: where an assessee claims actual profits lower than presumptive income and total income exceeds basic exemption, books and audit obligations apply - taxpayers should retain books and be prepared for audit if invoking that route.
      • Receipt by non-account-payee cheque or bank draft is treated as cash for the cash-receipt tests - practitioners should track payment modes and classify non-account-payee instruments accordingly.

      Key Takeaways

      • Both texts establish a presumptive taxation regime for small businesses, goods-carriage owners and certain professionals with turnover thresholds and prescribed computation methods.
      • Differences between the Bill and the final Section are mainly in cross-references (section numbers), phrasing of the banking/online receipts rule and the deduction cross-reference for partner remuneration in firms operating goods carriages.
      • Final Section clarifies timing for banking/online receipts and expressly excludes sections 62/63 for goods-carriage businesses when computing monetary limits, reducing ambiguity for transport operators.
      • Taxpayers seeking to claim actual lower profits must maintain books and obtain audit reports where total income exceeds exemption limit - a compliance cost and evidentiary requirement.
      • Where the Act omits or alters cross-references present in the Bill, practitioners must consult the enacted sections (62, 63, 35, 141/144 etc.) to determine precise eligibility and deductions.

       


      Full Text:

      Section 58 Special provision for computing profits and gains of business or profession on presumptive basis in case of certain residents.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax