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
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
    Maximum Marginal Rate and Surcharge for Discretionary Trusts: ITAT Special Bench Clarifies Slab-Base...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Classification of Quicklime under the Customs Tariff: CESTAT Bangalore's Reaffirmation of HSN-Based ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Reassessment Notices Post-Ashish Agarwal and TOLA: Limitation and Sanction u/ss 149 and ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Seizure, Provisional Release and Limitation: Supreme Court on the Interplay of Sections 110(2), 110A...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Prima Facie Adjustments v. Substantive Adjudication: Procedural Boundaries in Return Processing (CPC...
    Survey, Unaccounted Stock (Eye-Estimates) and the Limits of Section 130: Statutory Primacy of Sectio...
    Input Tax Credit Abuse (ITC Fraud) and Judicial Review: Delhi High Court on Natural Justice, RUDs an...
    Writ Jurisdiction and Statutory Appeal in GST Fraud Investigations: A Judicial Re-affirmation
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) Post-Amendment, Accumulated Income and the Sixth Year: Legal Interpretation, Procedura...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Form No.10B & Section 119(2)(b): Condonation of Delay in Tax Exemption Claims: Principles, Precedent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Regulatory Ambit of Import of Second-Hand Electronic Capital Goods: Classification, Exemption and Pr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 195, DTAAs and Software Licences: A Practical Framework for Withholding Tax
    Provisional Attachment under GST: Draconian Powers, Statutory Time-Bars and the Rule of Law: Interpr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 263 Revisited: Jurisdictional Boundaries Where AO Takes a Plausible View on 80G Claims
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional Release in Customs Law: Balancing Revenue Protection and Commercial Fairness - A Compara...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Conditional Re-export and Revenue Safeguards: Judicially Crafted Remedies in Customs Adjudication
    GST Limitation Regime vs Executive Notifications: Judicial Review of Time-Limit Notifications under ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) After Finance Act, 2022: Utilization of Accumulated Income - Deemed Income, Vesting an...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    When Can an ITAT Reopen a Decision? Distinguishing Prior Binding Precedent from Subsequent Case-Law
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment and Jurisdiction: Reconciling JAO Roles with NFAC u/ss 144B & 151A (JAO / FAO)
❯❯
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
    Discretionary trusts taxed at maximum marginal rate must have surcharge computed under slab and threshold rules, not automatically at top rate.
    For private discretionary trusts taxed at the maximum marginal rate under sections 164/167B, the term denotes the highest basic slab rate under the Finance Act, but surcharge on that tax must be computed according to the Finance Act's slab- and threshold-based surcharge provisions; if the trust's total income does not cross the statutory surcharge threshold, no surcharge is leviable despite basic tax being at the top slab rate.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Quicklime classification: impure lime falls under specific tariff heading, not high purity calcium oxide, per HSN purity standard.
    The imported material, chemically tested as impure calcium oxide (about 92.2% CaO with mineral impurities), is classifiable under Heading 2522 10 00 as Quicklime. Chapter Note 1 to Chapter 25 must be read contextually and does not disqualify quicklime from Chapter 25 where the tariff text and HSN Explanatory Notes expressly contemplate calcined quicklime. Heading 2825 is confined to chemically pure calcium oxide (approximately 98% CaO) and its residuary sub-heading cannot displace the specific Heading 2522 unless that purity threshold and absence of impurities are met.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reassessment notices: surviving-time computation under COVID-era relief and new limitation rules renders late notices time-barred.
    The court held that in transitional reassessment cases the appropriate sanctioning authority is determined by when the original three-year expiry fell within the COVID-era relief window, so approval by the ordinarily specified authority for within-three-year cases suffices; limitation is governed by a two-step surviving-time computation measured from the original notice as of the relief-window terminal date, excluding stayed periods and the time allowed to reply, and any later notice issued beyond that surviving time is time-barred under the substituted limitation regime read with the time-relief statute and the legal-fiction continuity.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Seizure of goods: six month statutory limit for issuing show cause notice is mandatory despite provisional release.
    The six month limit in Section 110(2) for issuing a show cause notice after seizure under Section 110(1) is mandatory; only a single six month extension under the first proviso is permissible. Provisional release under Section 110A does not suspend, extend or neutralise that time bar. The 2018 second proviso making the six month rule inapplicable where provisional release is ordered is a substantive change and does not validate pre amendment seizures prolonged without notice.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Prima facie adjustments cannot decide debatable legal claims in return processing; contested deductions require scrutiny procedures.
    When a claimed deduction depends on timely deposit of employee welfare contributions and the legal question is debatable or pending higher adjudication, summary processing adjustments cannot be used to resolve the dispute; such matters require scrutiny or reassessment procedures and the validity of any processing-stage action must be judged by the law and facts existing at the time of processing.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Survey discovered unaccounted stock must be assessed under sections 35(6) and 73/74, not via section 130.
    Tax liability for unaccounted goods found in a survey must be determined under section 35(6) read with sections 73/74 of the GST Act; section 130 cannot be used to quantify tax or levy penalty in such cases. The statutory cross reference to sections 73/74 requires adherence to their procedural safeguards, and quantification based solely on eye estimates during survey is insufficient without proper weighment or verification.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit fraud: writ relief limited where appeals exist; hearings and raw RUDs generally suffice absent prejudice.
    The High Court held that writ jurisdiction must be exercised with restraint in complex ITC fraud matters appealable under Section 107; at least one personal hearing and provision of RUDs as collected by the Department generally suffice absent demonstrable prejudice; detailed allocation of penal liability under Sections 73/74/75(13)/122 requires adjudicatory or appellate factfinding and cannot be resolved in writ proceedings.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Writ jurisdiction limited where statutory appeal exists for fact intensive GST fraud investigations; appellate forum preferred for evidentiary disputes.
    The High Court reaffirmed that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is generally inappropriate where a statutory appeal exists for fact intensive GST investigations alleging fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit through fake invoices. Courts should confine review to jurisdictional defects or breaches of natural justice; detailed evidentiary disputes involving voluminous Relied Upon Documents, recorded statements and transaction chains are better resolved by the specialised appellate forum, which should hear appeals on merits and avoid dismissing on limitation grounds where appropriate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Prospectivity of tax amendments: changes to accumulation rules apply from their effective date, not to prior accruals.
    Interpretation of section 11(3) concludes that, under the pre-amendment text, accumulated charitable funds could be applied in the year immediately following the five-year accumulation period; the 2022/2023 amendment removing that year was treated as prospective under the presumption against retrospective tax imposition. Separately, corrections by the Centralised Processing Centre under section 143(1) are confined to mechanistic errors and should not resolve debatable substantive questions of statutory interpretation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay in tax exemption claims should favor substantive rights over mere technical filing defects when bona fide.
    Equitable application of the Condonation Power requires authorities to admit late Form No.10B filings when short delays or credible explanations would otherwise strip claimants of substantive exemption rights; procedural defects such as digital-signature technicalities must be tested against documentary e-filing evidence and substantial compliance, while administrative safeguards permit subsequent verification of the audit report.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Imported second hand MFDs meeting HSE technical criteria can be exempt from BIS registration and obtain conditional provisional release.
    Where importers produce prima facie evidence that imported second hand MFDs meet the Highly Specialized Equipment (HSE) criteria (limited units per model and physical thresholds such as weight >80 kg), those devices are exempt from compulsory BIS registration under the CRO and fall within the FTP residuary category for second hand capital goods; accordingly, provisional release may be granted on conditions (bond/guarantee and document verification) without prejudice to final adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Royalty characterisation for software determines withholding-non exclusive copies/licenses generally not subject to TDS unless income is chargeable.
    Payments for off the shelf/shrink wrapped software or hardware embedded software that constitute a resale of a copyrighted article or a grant of a non exclusive, restricted licence for internal use do not ordinarily constitute royalty under section 9(1)(vi) or typical DTAA provisions; withholding under section 195 arises only where the non resident's receipts are chargeable to tax in India (e.g., due to a PE or transfer of substantive copyright rights), and retrospective domestic amendments cannot be used to impose past withholding obligations on payors who lacked notice of the expanded definition.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional attachment limits: fixed statutory expiry prevents re-issuance of lapsed attachment orders on same property.
    A provisional attachment under the CGST scheme automatically ceases on expiry of the statutory time limit; once it has lapsed by operation of law, tax authorities have no power to re issue or renew a fresh provisional attachment over the same property on substantially the same grounds, and any such fresh order is void. Procedural rules or executive instructions cannot be used to circumvent this statutory safeguard and must be aligned with the primary legislation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisional jurisdiction cannot overturn a plausible assessment on charitable deductions where donation conditions are met.
    Tribunals held that Explanation 2 limiting CSR expenditure as a business deduction operates within the business income chapter and does not ipso facto bar claims under the donations regime; specific statutory exceptions indicate Parliament's choice to restrict only certain items. A mandatory CSR outlay does not automatically negate donation character where there is no material return, provided donee approval and documentary evidence are established. On revisional power, section 263 cannot be invoked to overturn an assessing officer's tenable, precedent backed view where enquiries were made; revision is justified only if the AO's conclusion is legally untenable or there was no inquiry.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional release of seized imports permitted subject to proportionate security, favouring bonds over bank guarantees before adjudication.
    Provisional release under Section 110 is permitted subject to proportionate protections: payment of duties as self-assessed; payment of a substantive portion (commonly fifty percent) of any departmental differential; and execution of enforceable bonds for the balance. Bank guarantees or cash security for speculative fines prior to adjudication are often disproportionate and may be replaced by bonds, though deliberate mis-declaration, concealment or prohibited imports justify stricter protective measures.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Conditional re-export of detained imports permitted when revenue is secured by enforceable financial guarantees and timelines.
    Courts may permit re-export of detained imports where the anticipated departmental remedy is monetary, provided the importer furnishes enforceable financial safeguards-typically a bond quantifying revenue exposure and a bank guarantee for a calibrated portion of the redetermined value-and complies with prescribed timelines; such orders are without prejudice to the Department's right to complete investigations, adjudicate, assess differential duties, and impose penalties.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Force majeure causation in GST limitation: proximate cause and mandatory council recommendation govern valid time limit extensions.
    Section 168A empowers executive modification of GST limitation periods but operates as delegated legislation subject to strict construction: valid exercise requires (i) a qualifying force majeure event, (ii) inability to complete prescribed actions, and (iii) proximate causation by that event; GST Council recommendation is a mandatory precondition and GIC substitution or post-facto ratification does not cure statutory defect.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Accumulated trust income: Tribunal rulings treat the 2022 amendment as prospective, preserving the prior six year utilisation window.
    Two Tribunal benches held that the Finance Act, 2022 amendment to the accumulation provision is prospective; accumulations made before 1 April 2022 remain governed by the prior law including the additional one year grace, and utilisation within that six year window cannot be taxed for AY 2023 24. The Tribunals relied on the presumption against retrospectivity, the Finance Bill memorandum stating an effective date of 1 April 2023, and fairness doctrines to conclude Parliament did not intend to curtail vested rights retroactively.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tribunal recall power limited: later judicial overruling alone cannot reopen finalized tax orders under review rules.
    The tribunal's power to amend is limited to rectifying a mistake apparent from the record existing at the time of the original order or to taking into account contemporaneous binding precedent not placed before it; a subsequent overruling or clarification by a superior court cannot alone justify recall, in light of the explanatory bar in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC and related authorities.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Concurrent jurisdiction between JAO and faceless authorities affirmed; JAO may initiate reassessment followed by faceless assessment.
    The faceless scheme and RMS produce information that may be surfaced to the JAO, permitting the JAO to conduct the pre-notice inquiry and form satisfaction to issue a notice initiating reassessment; thereafter records may be transmitted for faceless assessment via automated allocation, embodying a two-stage model that preserves both JAO initiation authority and central faceless assessment.

    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