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 61 "Special provision for computation of income on presumptive basis in respect of certain business activities of certain non-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 61 Special provision for computation of income on presumptive basis in respect of certain business activities of certain non-residents.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Clause 61 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) prescribes a presumptive scheme for computing profits and gains of certain specified businesses carried on by non-residents. It matters because it fixes taxable income for designated activities (shipping, aircraft, cruise ships, turnkey power construction, mineral oil services, and certain electronics-manufacturing services) at specified percentages of receipts. Affected parties include non-resident taxpayers and, in one entry, foreign companies and resident companies (as recipients). Effective/decision date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hook: Clause 61 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version). The clause creates a special presumptive computation method for profits and gains from specified business activities, overriding sections 26-54 "to the extent contrary" (Bill: s.61(1)). The clause applies to specified businesses listed in a Table in s.61(2), each paired with a specified assessee and a formula (percentage of defined receipts referred to as A and B). Definitions provided in-text relate to the components A and B for each Table entry. The clause contains limited provisions on claiming actual profits (audit-based), non-allowance of deductions, written down value computation, exclusions where certain sections apply, definition of "plant" (for Sl. No.5), and conditions for resident companies under Sl. No.6.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      The provision covers six specified businesses:

      • Operation of ships (other than cruise ships) - non-residents - 7.5% of (A+B).
      • Operation of cruise ships (conditions prescribed) - non-residents - 20% of (A+B).
      • Operation of aircraft - non-residents - 5% of (A+B).
      • Civil construction/erection/testing/commissioning of plant/machinery in connection with a turnkey power project, approved by Central Government - foreign companies - 10% of amount paid or payable.
      • Providing services/facilities (including supply of plant and machinery on hire) for prospecting/extraction/production of mineral oils - non-resident person - 10% of (A+B).
      • Providing services/technology in India for establishing/operating electronics manufacturing facility or in connection with manufacturing electronic goods to a resident company - non-residents - 25% of (A+B).

      Each entry defines A and B as receipts/amounts either paid/payable (in or outside India) or received/deemed to be received in India depending on the activity; inclusive examples such as demurrage, handling charges are specified for shipping.

      Interpretation

      The clause creates a deeming/presumptive mechanism: the specified percentage of the defined receipts "shall be computed ... and charged to income-tax" under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession." Legislative intent, as indicated by the text, is to provide a simplified, predictable taxation basis for specified cross-border activities often difficult to tax under conventional computation rules. The Bill contemplates that, despite sections 26-54 normally governing computation, this clause will govern computation "to the extent contrary" - i.e., where inconsistent, the presumptive rule prevails.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Key exceptions and conditions expressly in the clause:

      • Sub-section (3): For Table Sl. Nos. 1-5, the specified assessee may claim that actual profits are lower than presumptive amount if books of account are maintained as per section 62 and accounts are audited with report u/s 63.
      • Sub-section (4): No loss, allowance or deduction under the Act shall be allowed against income computed under subsection (2).
      • Sub-section (5): Written down value of assets used for the specified business shall be computed as if depreciation had been claimed and allowed each relevant year.
      • Sub-section (6): For Sl. No.5, the provisions shall not apply where sections 54, 59, 207 or 527 apply for computing profits or other income referred in those sections.
      • Sub-section (7): "Plant" includes an enumerated list (ships, aircrafts, vehicles, drilling units, scientific apparatuses and equipments) used for the specified business in Sl. No.5.
      • Sub-section (8): For Sl. No.6, resident company must be operating/establishing an electronics manufacturing facility under a central government notified scheme (MeitY) and satisfy conditions prescribed.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1 (shipping non-resident): A non-resident ship operator receives sums A (shipments from Indian ports) and B (shipments from foreign ports deemed received in India). Taxable business profits under Clause 61 are 7.5% of (A+B) and no further deductions/losses can be set off against this amount. (No numerical data provided in the document.)

      • Example 2 (turnkey power foreign company): A foreign company receives amounts for erection/testing under an approved turnkey power project. Taxable income is 10% of the amounts paid/payable to the company for such services. The company may, if it maintains books and audits (per s.62/63), claim actual profits lower than 10% (subject to subsection (3)).

      Interplay

      The clause expressly displaces sections 26-54 to the extent inconsistent, thereby altering the usual rules for income computation for the listed activities. It cross-refers to sections 62 and 63 (bookkeeping and audit) as preconditions for claiming actual profits, and to sections 54, 59, 207 and 527 to exclude application in specific circumstances for Sl. No.5. No other rules, notifications or circulars are cited in the Bill text. Any interpretive ambiguities arise in determining the scope of "to the extent contrary" and the precise meaning of "deemed to be received in India" in certain entries (Not stated in the document as to clarifying guidance).

      Differences between Section 61 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 and Clause 61 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version)

      • Terminology for affected persons in Table, Sl. No. 5: Bill (Old Version) uses "Non-resident person"; Act uses "Non-resident."

        • Practical impact: Minor drafting normalization; no substantive difference in scope unless "person" was intended to include residents (not stated). Likely none of substantive effect.
      • Scope reference in subsection (3): Bill refers to "Table: Sl. Nos. 1 to 5"; Act limits subsection (3) to "Table: Sl. Nos. 4 and 5."
        • Practical impact: Act narrows the provision allowing audited actual-profit claim to only items 4 and 5, whereas the Bill permitted such claims for items 1-5. This is substantive: under the Act, non-resident shipping and aircraft operators (Sl. Nos.1-3) lose the explicit ability under s.61(3) to seek audit-based lower profits; they are strictly bound by the prescribed presumptive percentages unless another provision applies. This increases tax certainty for authorities but raises compliance/risk for those taxpayers.
      • Definition/wording of "plant" (subsection (7)/(7) in Bill): Bill states "In this section, 'plant' includes ... used for the purposes of the specified business as mentioned in sub-section (2) (Table: Sl. No. 5)." Act states "For the purposes of sub-section (2) (Table: Sl. No. 5) 'plant' includes ..."
        • Practical impact: The Act confines the definition explicitly for s.61(2) Sl. No.5 purposes, aligning the scope; the Bill's broader phrase "In this section" could potentially have been read to apply the list more widely. The Act therefore narrows or clarifies the application of the definition.
      • Subsection (6) phraseology and numbering: Both refer to exclusions where sections 54, 59, 207 or 527 apply but Bill and Act differ slightly in wording and numbering references; substance appears same.
        • Practical impact: No material change discernible from the texts provided.
      • Subsection (8) proviso on resident company conditions (Sl. No. 6): Bill states "it satisfies the conditions prescribed in this behalf." Act states "it satisfies the conditions as may be prescribed in this behalf."
        • Practical impact: Purely stylistic/drafting; no substantive effect evident.
      • Subsection (9) in Act: Adds an express provision that sections 59 and 207 shall not apply to amounts referred to in s.61(2) Table Sl. No.6. This subsection is not present in the Bill (Old Version).
        • Practical impact: The Act provides an express non-application (exemption) of s.59 and s.207 to the electronics-manufacturing-related Sl. No.6 amounts, removing potential liabilities or withholding/other consequences under those sections for those amounts. This clarifies a gap in the Bill and reduces uncertainty for non-residents providing such services/technology.
      • Subsection (1) wording: Bill says "shall not apply to the specified business mentioned in column B of the Table in sub-section (2)." Act says "shall not apply to the manner of computation of profits and gains of the specified business in sub-section (2)."
        • Practical impact: Act clarifies the limited non-application is to the manner of computation (i.e., computation rules), reducing any unintended broader exclusion. This narrows the non-application and clarifies legislative intent.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Taxpayers carrying on the listed activities must compute taxable profits using the fixed percentages for the defined receipts. For Sl. Nos.1-5, taxpayers can contest the presumptive amount by maintaining books and obtaining an audit (s.62/63). For Sl. No.6, the requirement that the resident company operates under a notified MeitY scheme and prescribed conditions must be satisfied, else the presumptive rate may not apply. Failure to maintain the requisite books/audit where a taxpayer wishes to claim lower actual profits will foreclose that avenue.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: Where a taxpayer intends to claim actual profits lower than the presumptive amount, strict compliance with s.62 (books of account) and s.63 (audit report) prerequisites is mandatory. For other taxpayers, documentation evidencing receipt categories A and B and that amounts are paid/payable or received/deemed received in India is essential to compute the base for the percentage.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 61 prescribes presumptive taxation percentages for six specified non-resident activities, simplifying computation by reference to defined receipts.
      • For Sl. Nos.1-5, the Bill allows audit-backed claims to prove actual profits are lower than presumptive amounts, subject to s.62/63 compliance.
      • No deductions, losses or allowances under the Act may be set against income computed under the presumptive scheme.
      • Specific definitions and carve-outs apply: "plant" is defined for mineral-oil services, and Sl. No.6 requires resident company participation under a notified MeitY scheme.
      • Interplay with sections 26-54 is limited: the presumptive method overrides to the extent of inconsistency; precise interaction points may require clarification in practice (Not stated in the document).

      Full Text:

      Section 61 Special provision for computation of income on presumptive basis in respect of certain business activities of certain non-residents.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax