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 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