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 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