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
    Retrospective Cancellation of GST Registration: Analysis of Delhi High Court’s Ruling in 2024 (1) ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Deciphering Tax Implications on Capital Reduction: Navigating the Complexities of Section 115QA in I...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Navigating Regulatory Compliance: Analysis of a CHA License Revocation and Restoration Case
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting Section 153A: ITAT Delhi's Stand on Incriminating Material in Assessments: Assessments ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reaffirming the Bounds of Section 153A: Analysis of Delhi High Court's Approach: Assessment post sea...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating Rectification and Revised Returns: Legal Insights from ITAT Bangalore's Ruling
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Mutual Fund Gains and Deemed Dividends: Analyzing the Delhi High Court's Landmark Judgment
    Case LawsCustoms
    Judicial Scrutiny of Customs Seizure and Redemption under the Indian Legal Framework: Foreign Curren...
    Case LawsCustoms
    The Duty of Diligence: Understanding the Legal Implications for Customs Brokers
    Case LawsCustoms
    Legal Analysis of a Customs Appeal Case Involving Mandatory Pre-Deposit Requirements
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Legal Elucidation of Homeopathic Product Classification under Central Excise Tariff Act: Medicament ...
    The Supreme Court's In-Depth Ruling on Corporate Insolvency: Legal Implications Explored
    Money Laundering and Bail: Supreme Court's Interpretation of Section 45 PMLA
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessing Income under Section 147 Post-Quashment of Sections 153A/153C: The Waiver of Limitation ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 153A of the Income Tax Act: A Critical Analysis of the Supreme Court's Interpretation in the...
    The Intersection of Politics, Corruption, and Judicial Review: A Case Study: Validity of order of Hi...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Clarity and Precision in Tax Penalty Proceedings: Insights from a High Court Judgment
    NCLAT's Authority to Recall Judgments: The Intersection of Tribunal Authority and Justice
    Detention and Release of Goods under CGST Act: Discrepancies in the CGST registration of the consign...
    The Detention of Goods under GST Law: Doubts regarding the genuineness of the consignee
❯❯
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 LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Retrospective GST cancellation: court limits retroactive effect, stressing objective grounds and hearing rights for taxpayers.
    The court held that retrospective cancellation of GST registration cannot be applied mechanically and must be supported by objective grounds; mere non-filing does not automatically justify cancelling registration for earlier compliant periods. Procedural fairness requires an opportunity of being heard before imposing retrospective cancellation, and the temporal effect of cancellation should align with the taxpayer's cancellation application rather than an earlier retrospective date, given potential impacts such as denial of input tax credit.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Capital reduction transactions treated outside buyback levy when executed pre amendment; buyback tax not attracted.
    The Tribunal held that the capital reduction did not qualify as a buyback for purposes of the buyback tax provision because the transaction was completed before the amendment that broadened the provision's definition; relying on precedents distinguishing capital reduction from buybacks, the Tribunal rejected the revenue's tax avoidance contention and emphasised that the transaction date governs applicability of the amended definition.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Non transferability of CHA license: unauthorized sub letting triggered revocation, later reconsidered due to appellant hardship.
    A licensed CHA was found to have contravened CHALR by effectively transferring operational control to a Mumbai office through a Power of Attorney, breaching non transferability, CHA obligations to obtain authorisations and exercise due diligence, and supervision duties over employees; the firm was held accountable where the licence was used for financial gain.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Incriminating material requirement: Section 153A assessments require material specific to the assessee, not unrelated third party statements.
    Assessments following search operations must be grounded on incriminating material specifically linked to the assessee; material or statements derived from separate or third party search proceedings cannot, alone, serve as incriminating material against an unrelated assessee. Absent assesseespecific incriminating material, additions and disallowances in such assessments lack justification and cannot properly form the basis of adverse tax adjustments.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Admissibility of search statements: corroborative evidence required before additions in post-search tax assessments.
    Statements recorded under Section 132(4) have evidentiary value but cannot alone justify additions under Section 153A; corroborative material discovered during the search is required, and taxpayers must be afforded the opportunity to cross-examine and rebut adverse statements before assessments under Section 153A are finalized.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Rectification under Section 154: procedural lapses should not bar correction of apparent errors in tax returns.
    Interpretation of Section 154 treats misplacement of figures in an original return as a mistake apparent from the record, qualifying for statutory rectification; a revised return filed as a genuine corrective attempt may be recognised despite procedural lapses, and tax authorities should balance procedural compliance with the need to remedy apparent errors and assist taxpayers in claiming corrections.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Classification of Mutual Fund Gains: affirmed as capital gains, clarifies tests distinguishing business income and scope of deemed dividends.
    Classification of gains from mutual fund redemptions turns on intent, transaction frequency, holding period, accounting treatment and the factual matrix to determine capital gains versus business income. Distinguishing genuine capital contributions from transactions that function as distributions is essential before treating receipts as deemed dividends; absent characteristics of a loan or advance against profits, capital infusions should not be recharacterised as dividends.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Redemption under Customs Act: deemed payment recognized as exercising the redemption option despite pandemic-related delay.
    The judgment analyzes the redemption option under the Customs Act allowing fine payment in lieu of confiscation, focusing on the prescribed timeframe and on how actions by a petitioner while seized currency remains with the department can constitute exercise of that option. Considering pandemic-related disruption, the court applied purposive interpretation and concluded the department's refusal to accept a deemed payment was unjustified and that the petitioner's steps effectively availed the statutory redemption alternative.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Duty to exercise due diligence: strict licensing compliance can justify administrative revocation and security forfeiture for brokers.
    The headnote focuses on the duty of diligence under the CBLR 2018, identifying failures to advise clients, to verify information, and to supervise employees as breaches that can attract administrative penalties against a customs broker's licence. It also confirms that regulatory action may be initiated at the broker's registered location regardless of where the underlying transactions occurred, and highlights the need for compliance programs, client advisory practices, and employee training.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Mandatory pre-deposit requirement: payments made during investigation can be counted toward the appeal pre-deposit, protecting access to appeal.
    Interpretation of the pre-deposit requirement focuses on counting payments made during investigation toward the mandatory deposit for appellate admissibility; authorities must account for investigation-stage deposits when assessing compliance to avoid denying appeal rights on technical grounds and to give effect to substantive payment.
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Show AI Summary
    Medicament classification confirmed for a homeopathic hair oil based on ingredients and ordinary perception under tariff law.
    Classification of a homeopathic hair oil as a medicament depends on the ingredients test and the common parlance test. The Tribunal treated AHAHO as a medicament because it contained recognised homeopathic constituents and was labelled under the homeopathic schedule; the Supreme Court affirmed that those medicinal ingredients and the product's perception as a homeopathic medicine outweigh cosmetic imagery and over the counter availability, and that tariff amendments did not change the classificatory result.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Resolution applicant eligibility under insolvency law can be disqualified by trust and company conflicts affecting CIRP participation.
    The judgment finds that valuation disclosures and newspaper publication of Form G met CIRP regulatory requirements despite website upload issues; materially revised resolution plans must be placed before the Committee of Creditors or are procedurally irregular; commercial wisdom of the CoC governs differential treatment of creditors subject to legal compliance; promoter settlement offers and Section 12-A applications require demonstrable CoC consideration; and resolution applicant eligibility is governed by Trusts Act and Companies Act conflicts, not by assumed disqualifications absent specific disqualification orders.
    Case LawsPMLA
    Show AI Summary
    Section 45 PMLA bail standard: stringent satisfaction required on non guilt and low risk of reoffence before granting bail.
    Interpretation of Section 45 PMLA requires a stringent bail standard: courts must be satisfied on reasonable grounds that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit an offence while on bail. An Enforcement Directorate investigation under the PMLA is distinct from predicate offence inquiries, so completion of predicate investigations does not substitute for the specific assessment required under the PMLA; courts must therefore evaluate the seriousness of allegations and the stage and character of the ED probe when considering bail.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reopening assessments under Section 147 requires proper review when Section 150(2) waiver is contested, not clarification.
    Reopening of assessments under Section 147 concerns whether the Assessing Officer has a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment and is subject to procedural safeguards including issuance of a statutory notice. Where prior assessments made in consequence of a search under provisions for search-based assessment were quashed, the question arises whether fresh proceedings may be initiated for income not arising from incriminating material found in the search and whether the limitation period can be waived under Section 150(2) to permit issuance of a notice for reassessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Scope of assessment post-search: completed assessments permit additions only from incriminating material found during searches.
    The Supreme Court clarified that for assessments completed before a search, the Assessing Officer's power to reassess within the retrospective period is constrained: any additions in such completed assessments must be based on incriminating material discovered during the search, thereby limiting use of search powers to matters tied to the unearthed evidence and preventing expansion of assessments on unrelated material.
    Case LawsPMLA
    Show AI Summary
    Judicial oversight of criminal investigations must be cautious to avoid unwarranted de novo probes that disrupt investigative progress.
    The commentary critiques a High Court-ordered de novo investigation into recruitment corruption, treating such measures as extraordinary remedies that should not unsettle substantial prior investigative work. It stresses judicial discipline and adherence to precedent, warns against collusion and political interference in inquiries, recognises expanded locus standi for third parties in complex cases, affirms confidentiality of confession material with limited exceptions, and outlines the Enforcement Directorate's powers in probing and recovering proceeds of money laundering.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Specificity in penalty notices: requirement to identify exact charge prevents defective proceedings and safeguards procedural fairness.
    Applicability of penalty for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars requires the assessing officer to specify the exact limb under which proceedings are initiated; absence of that specificity renders the penalty notice defective, undermines procedural fairness, and justifies setting aside the penalty, thereby obliging tax authorities to adhere to precise notice requirements when invoking penal provisions.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Inherent jurisdiction to recall judgments affirms tribunals can correct proceedings tainted by procedural vitiation or jurisdictional defect.
    The tribunal recognised its inherent jurisdiction to recall judgments distinct from review, holding that recall is available where procedural vitiation, fraud, lack of jurisdiction or failure of natural justice renders a proceeding a nullity. Drawing on the tribunal rules analogue to residual civil-procedure power and higher-court authority, the tribunal treated recall as an incidental order to prevent abuse of process and to correct proceedings affected by jurisdictional defect or gross procedural lapse.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Detention and release under Section 129: proper tax invoice and e way bill establish owner status and permit release.
    Where goods intercepted in transit show a proper tax invoice and a valid e way bill identifying the consignor/consignee, those documents establish ownership for purposes of Section 129 and direct application of the release provision applicable when the owner comes forward; documentary compliance thus determines which release regime applies where GST registration discrepancies are alleged.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Detention of goods under GST: enforcement must assess consignee genuineness and documentary compliance before imposing penalties.
    Detention of goods in transit was contested where authorities suspected the consignee's genuineness despite production of a tax invoice and an E way bill; the Court directed that enforcement action distinguish between penalty provisions and alternative statutory mechanisms, require strict procedural fairness, assess documentary evidence and consignee identity, and remit the matter for fresh administrative consideration accordingly.

    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