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
    Jurisdictional Prerequisites for Initiating Reassessment u/s 148: Non-Depoist of TDS by the Employer
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revisiting the Scope of "Record" u/s 263: Embracing Subsequent Records
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Record": Revisiting the Scope of Revision Powers u/s 264 and Rectification of Mistake ...
    The Doctrine of Natural Justice in GST Proceedings: A Case Study on Show Cause Notice u/s 74"
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) and the Concept of "Plant" under GST: Supreme Court
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: High Court's Stance on Quashing Show Cause Notices
    Case LawsCustoms
    Inordinate Delay in Adjudication: Upholding the Principles of Natural Justice
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Re-Assessment Notices Issued During COVID-19 Lockdown
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Unraveling the Mineral Rights Regime: The Supreme Court's Landmark Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Assessment Regime: A Judicial Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Evidentiary Value of Statements Recorded During Income Tax Surveys: A Judicial Analysis
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment: Ensuring Compliance with Statutory Provisions
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment Mechanism: Jurisdictional Limits in Income Tax Proceedings
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessment Notices for AY 2013-14: Upholding the Doctrine of Limitation
    Principles of Tax Fairness and Mens Rea: Quashes Penalty for Mere Technical Errors
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Decoding the Mandatory Timelines: A Thorough Examination of the Income Tax Assessment Order Nullific...
    Expiry of E-Way Bill AND Mens Rea: Technical Violation Alone Insufficient for Penalty Imposition
    Maintainability of Appeals: High Court Upholds Strict Interpretation of Limitation Provisions in GST...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Stay of Tax Demand: Interpreting the Discretionary Power u/s 220(6) of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting "Technical Services" under Tax Treaties: A Comprehensive Analysis
❯❯
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
    Jurisdictional prerequisite: notice in the name of a deceased person invalidates reassessment initiation under Section 148.
    A notice under Section 148 issued in the name of a deceased person is a jurisdictional defect because a valid notice to the correct person is a condition precedent to reopening an assessment; legal representatives have no statutory duty to intimate death; where salary tax has been deducted at source, reassessment cannot be pursued against the deceased or their representatives, and employer non-deposit of TDS does not create an outstanding demand against the assessee or their legal representatives.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisional power: Commissioner may consider subsequent records available at time of examination in tax proceedings.
    The Court construed the Commissioner's revisional power to permit consideration of all materials relating to the proceeding that are available at the time of his examination, including documents and valuation reports that came on the file after the assessment order; the Explanation to the provision was read as clarificatory, giving an inclusive meaning to "record" rather than restricting it to what the Assessing Officer had when passing the assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revision powers under section 264: Commissioner must consider expanded record and rehear revision petitions on merits.
    The Court held that the Commissioner must consider a revision petition on its merits and that the term record in revision proceedings extends beyond the return and assessment order to include material from other sources and prior assessments. It emphasised consistency in treatment of continuing transactions and required the Principal Commissioner to take into account all relevant materials, identify any apparent mistakes, afford a personal hearing, and pass a reasoned order within a short timeframe.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice in tax proceedings: show cause notices must allege fraud or concealment before enhanced recovery is invoked.
    The court quashed the enhanced-provision show cause notice for failing to allege the essential elements of fraud, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts and held that the enhanced regime may be invoked only when the adjudicating authority is prima facie satisfied of those elements and records that satisfaction in the notice; absent such express allegations the proceedings are without jurisdiction though fresh proceedings may be initiated with a proper notice.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Plant classification under GST: functionality test determines ITC eligibility for buildings serving special technical requirements.
    The expression plant or machinery in Section 17(5)(d) of the CGST Act must be interpreted by reference to functionality rather than by equating it with the statutory definition of "plant and machinery." A building qualifies as a plant for ITC purposes if, on the facts, it was planned and constructed to serve the assessee's special technical or operational requirements. The functionality test is fact-specific and requires case-by-case analysis of the building's role in the assessee's business.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication bars further proceedings on stale show cause notices absent a reasonable explanation.
    The court found the delay from 2008 to 2021 inordinate and unexplained, concluding the respondents did not provide a reasonable explanation; the delayed transfer to the call book without intimation breached statutory intimation requirements, and established precedent limits reliance on higher authority to excuse gross unexplained delays in adjudication of show cause notices.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Inordinate delay in adjudication undermines procedural fairness and bars continuation of prolonged, unexplained proceedings.
    The court found that prolonged, unexplained delay in adjudicating a show cause notice breached procedural fairness and natural justice, causing irretrievable prejudice by impairing evidence preservation and business planning. Delay attributable to the revenue authorities, contrary to Tribunal directions for timely disposal, rendered continuance of proceedings unsustainable and emphasized the necessity of justifying delay and ensuring timely adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Pandemic relief legislation upheld: re-assessment notices issued during lockdown remain valid despite later procedural rule.
    The court interpreted the pandemic relief legislation as providing comprehensive relief that extended to procedural obligations in force at the time of issuance, not confined solely to extensions of time. It applied the principle that statutes operate prospectively and concluded the later-introduced procedural provision does not apply retrospectively to invalidate earlier-issued re-assessment notices, limiting its analysis to the validity of issuance and not the merits of re-assessment proceedings.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Central legislative competence over mineral regulation affirmed; royalties characterised as compensation for resource depletion, limiting state levies.
    The Court concluded that the central legislative framework occupies the field of mineral regulation and that royalties are compensation for depletion of state-owned natural resources, not conventional taxes; consequently the Centre may impose such levies while States remain constrained from imposing royalties in the nature of compensation that would encroach on the Centre's exclusive regulatory domain.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment mechanism requires reassessment steps to follow a centralized faceless procedure, otherwise territorial officer lacks jurisdiction.
    The Scheme framed under the enabling provision must be read to include preliminary proceedings linked to reassessment, so that reassessment initiation and related steps follow the faceless mechanism; concurrent exercise of territorial and faceless functions would undermine the Scheme's purpose and render steps taken outside the faceless protocol inconsistent with the statutory framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Evidentiary value of survey statements: survey disclosures lack conclusive weight and require independent corroboration.
    Statements recorded during a tax survey are permissive and not taken on oath, so they are not conclusive evidence by themselves; they cannot be treated as inherently incriminating material to justify reopening assessments or making additions without independent corroboration, and must be recorded free of coercion in line with administrative instructions and judicial precedents.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless assessment jurisdiction: JAO lacked authority under the statutory faceless procedure, invalidating improperly issued notices.
    The court determined that reassessment notices and related proceedings were inconsistent with the statutory faceless assessment framework because they were issued without following the prescribed allocation of jurisdiction and procedural sequence under the faceless mechanism; administrative orders purportedly exempting cases were not read to displace the statutory requirements and earlier precedent interpreting the faceless provisions was applied.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Faceless Assessment: statutory scheme governs jurisdiction and extends to central and international taxation proceedings.
    The court analysed Section 151A read with Sections 144B and 148A and held that administrative instructions dated March 31, 2021 and September 6, 2021 issued under section 119 apply only to assessment orders and do not extend to proceedings under Sections 148A and 148; those instructions cannot be read into the scheme notified on March 29, 2022. The mandatory faceless procedure under Sections 144B and 151A applies to notices and proceedings, including central charges and international taxation charges, and notices issued outside that mechanism fall outside the statutory jurisdictional framework.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Doctrine of limitation prevents revival of lapsed reassessment powers; administrative instructions cannot "travel back in time."
    The court held that when the right to reopen assessment had already lapsed under the pre amended limitation regime, subsequent amendments or administrative instructions could not revive that right; administrative attempts to "travel back in time" and extend limitation were invalid, assessees retain the defence of limitation, and pandemic era notifications did not cover years whose limitation had already expired.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement in tax penalties: technical errors without intent cannot justify penalty imposition under GST compliance.
    Requirement of mens rea for imposition of tax penalties is central where e Way Bill compliance is questioned. Mere procedural or timing inconsistencies, without evidence of intent to evade tax and where valid tax invoices accompany the goods and tax has been charged, do not justify penal action. Authorities must establish culpable intent with cogent reasoning and comply with procedural and natural justice safeguards before imposing penalties.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Mandatory timelines under Section 144C require assessments to be completed within the prescribed month after DRP direction, else invalid.
    Once the DRP framed directions, the Assessing Officer was obliged to complete the assessment in conformity with those directions within one month from the end of the month in which the DRP's direction was served; service by uploading the DRP directive on the ITBA portal constitutes valid service for computing that period. The procedure does not envisage further involvement of the Transfer Pricing Officer once the DRP's direction is issued and an order under the transfer pricing provision has been remitted to the AO.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Mens rea requirement: technical expiry of an e way bill alone cannot justify a tax penalty without intent to evade.
    The court held that a purely technical lapse in E Way Bill formalities - where goods were otherwise covered by two e invoices and two E Way Bills and there was no dispute on consignor, consignee or goods - does not demonstrate the mens rea necessary to impose a penalty under the tax penal provision; authorities' focus on the expired E Way Bill alone was legally insufficient given documentary explanations and absence of intent to evade tax.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Exclusion of Limitation Act: GST Act's specific appellate time limits operate as a self contained code, barring general extensions.
    The court analysed whether the GST Act's appellate limitation regime operates as a complete code excluding the general Limitation Act. It applied the principle that fiscal statutes with detailed procedural and temporal rules are to be strictly construed, treating the special statute's limitation provision as implying exclusion of the Limitation Act's extension mechanism, and emphasised policy aims of expeditious dispute resolution, revenue certainty and administrative finality.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Assessing Officer discretion in granting stay of tax demand cannot be rigidly constrained by administrative OMs, requiring case specific consideration.
    The Assessing Officer's discretionary power under section 220(6) to grant stay of tax demand is not fettered by CBDT Office Memorandums; those OMs are administrative guidelines and do not mandate a uniform pre deposit. The AO must consider prima facie case, likelihood of success, and undue hardship and may require a higher, lower or no deposit depending on case specific facts. Administrative adjustment of refunds without considering a pending stay application was held arbitrary and the matter was remitted for reconsideration applying these principles.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Technical services interpretation requires specialized expertise and a demonstrable link to payments for withholding tax consequences.
    Interpretation of technical services under the India Ireland DTAA requires the application or transfer of specialized knowledge, skill or expertise; incidental training or assistance enabling a reseller to market standard software does not meet that threshold. The Reseller Agreement did not contemplate technology transfer or bespoke solutions, payments were tied to reseller net revenue, and the record lacked material linking remittances to customized technical services. Authorities must establish an evidentiary and contractual nexus between payments and provision of specialized technical services before applying withholding tax under the treaty.

    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 92 "Income from other sources." between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

      1 September, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Section 92 Income from other sources.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Clause 92 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - (Old Version) sets out the head of income "Income from other sources" and itemises particular receipts chargeable under that head. It matters because it determines taxation of diverse receipts (dividends, winnings, gifts, insurance proceeds, etc.) and affects taxpayers across individuals, HUFs, business trusts and payers. Effective date or decision date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hook: Clause 92 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (F. - Income from other sources). The clause provides a non-exhaustive list of items chargeable under the head "Income from other sources" where such receipts are not chargeable under other specified heads (section 13(a)-(d) referenced). The provision contains definitions and exclusions to determine when particular receipts-dividends, gambling winnings, gifts, insurance proceeds, certain receipts by unit holders, compensation and interest-fall within this head. Specific definitions for terms such as "assessable", "card game and other game of any sort", "fair market value", "jewellery", "lottery", "property", "relative" and "unit linked insurance policy" are included. Any explanatory context beyond the clause text: Not stated in the document.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Clause 92(1) establishes a residuary taxing head: any income not excluded from total income and not chargeable under the heads specified in section 13(a)-(d) is chargeable under "Income from other sources." Clause 92(2) supplies an illustrative (non-exhaustive) list including: dividends; winnings from lotteries, puzzles and games; employee contributions to welfare funds where not chargeable under business profits; Keyman insurance proceeds; interest on securities; hire income from plant/machinery/furniture (and, in specified circumstances, buildings); forfeited advances during failed negotiations to transfer capital assets; interest on compensation u/s 278(1); termination/modification payments from employment; specified sums distributed by a business trust computed via A-B-C; life insurance proceeds exceeding premium aggregate (subject to exclusions); and gifts / property received without or for inadequate consideration subject to thresholds and exceptions.

      Interpretation

      The clause signals legislative intent to: (a) consolidate miscellaneous incomes under a single head where no other head applies; (b) tax certain transfers and receipts with bright-line rules (e.g., gift thresholds, computation for business trust distributions); and (c) rely on cross-referenced definitions and valuation mechanisms (e.g., "stamp duty value", "fair market value", "specified banking or electronic modes" via other sections). The presence of detailed subclauses and defined terms indicates an intent to reduce ambiguity by specifying categories and valuation/payment mechanics. Interpretive principles indicated by the text: literal application of specified tests (thresholds, modes of payment, valuation dates) and deference to cross-references for technical definitions.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Key carve-outs and conditions include:

      • Life insurance receipts: unit linked policies and Keyman insurance receipts are excluded from clause (l) (treated separately); excess over aggregate premiums (not claimed as deduction) is taxable, "computed in such manner, as prescribed."
      • Gifts and property receipts: clause (2)(m) applies thresholds of Rs. 50,000 (fifty thousand rupees) for various types of gratuitous receipts and inadequate consideration; clause (3) lists exceptions where clause (2)(m) does not apply (gifts from relatives, on marriage, by will/inheritance, in contemplation of death, from local authorities, from registered non-profit organisations subject to specified limitations, certain non-transfer transactions u/s 70(1), trust-to-relative transactions and other prescribed classes/conditions).
      • Immovable property valuation for gifts: stamp duty value on the date of agreement applies if payment in prescribed modes occurred on or before the agreement date; disputed valuations may be referred to a Valuation Officer with sections 78(2) and 288 procedures applicable.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: An individual receives cash of Rs. 75,000 as a gratuitous gift from a non-relative. Under clause 92(2)(m)(i) the entire Rs. 75,000 is taxable as "Income from other sources" (subject to exceptions in clause (3) - none apply here).

      • Example 2: An employee receives termination compensation. Clause 92(2)(j) brings "any compensation or other payment ... in connection with the termination of his employment" under this head, unless chargeable under another head (Not stated in the document whether any specific exemption applies).

      • Example 3: A unit holder receives a distribution from a business trust. Compute specified sum = A - B - C; if negative, treated as zero; the resulting amount is taxable under this clause subject to exceptions for items characterised under Schedule V or section 223(2).

      Interplay

      The clause expressly interacts with multiple other provisions: section 13(a)-(d) (other heads), Schedule II (insurance tables), Schedule V, section 223(2) (tax treatment of certain distributions), section 278(1) (compensation interest), section 66(32) or equivalent (specified banking/online modes - Bill defines payment modes explicitly), section 70(1) (transactions not regarded as transfer), sections 78(2) and 288 (valuation procedures), section 355 (definition/conditions for non-profit organisations), and other undefined prescribed rules for valuation and computation. The clause therefore operates within a network of cross-references and delegated rules which determine practical tax consequences.

      Differences between Section 92 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 and Clause 92 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - (Old Version)

      • The Act (Document 1) cross-references section numbers and Schedules differently from the Bill (Document 2). Examples: the Act in subsection (2)(d) refers to "Keyman insurance policy, as defined in Schedule II (Note 1)" (same wording), while the Bill uses "as defined Schedule II (Note 1)" (minor typographical omission). In subsection (5)(a) the Act defines "assessable" by reference to section 2(105); the Bill defines "assessable" by reference to section 78(3).
        • Practical impact: the Act's cross-reference to section 2(105) may change the meaning/coverage of "assessable" relative to the Bill; if the definitions in the cited sections differ, taxpayers and officers will apply different legal tests.
      • Payment modes wording for immovable property (subsection (4)(a)): The Bill specifies payment modes as "by account payee cheque or account payee bank draft or by electronic clearing system through a bank account or through any prescribed electronic mode." The Act replaces that formulation with the more general "specified banking or online mode as defined in section 66(32)".
        • Practical impact: the Act consolidates and standardises permitted modes by reference to a statutory definition (section 66(32)), which may expand or restrict acceptable payment modes compared with the Bill's enumerated list and will centralise future changes in the definition rather than amending section 92 each time.
      • Formatting and drafting differences in subsection (3)(f)/(g) proviso cross-references: The Bill's proviso (3)(f) refers to section 355(g) and excepts when received by any person referred to in section 355(i). The Act refers to section 355(g) and excepts when received by any person referred to in section 355(h).
        • Practical impact: if sections 355(h) and 355(i) denote different classes, the scope of the exemption for registered non-profit organisations will change; one must consult the final Act's section 355 to determine which persons remain taxable.
      • Subsection (3)(g) list of transactions not regarded as transfer: The Bill and Act list differing paragraph letters within section 70(1). The Bill's list order and letters differ (includes items in a different sequence and with some letters swapped).
        • Practical impact: divergent lists could alter which transactions qualify for the exclusion from clause (2)(m) treatment, affecting transfer characterization for specific transaction types. The precise practical effect depends on alignment of those lettered subclauses in section 70 in the final Act.
      • Definitions - minor wording and drafting changes: Differences appear in subsection (5)(c) where the Bill states "means the value determined in such method as prescribed" (drafting error) while the Act states "means the value determined by such method as may be prescribed" (clearer). Subsection (5)(e) (definition of "lottery") and (5)(f) (property list) are substantively identical, but the Act includes "virtual digital asset" as item (x) as does the Bill.
        • Practical impact: most are drafting clarifications; the Act's clearer language reduces interpretive ambiguity.
      • Scope of 'relative' definition (subsection (5)(g)): The Bill's clause (5)(g)(i)(E) says "any lineal ascendant or descendant (maternal as well as paternal)" and then repeats "maternal as well as paternal" elsewhere; the Act lists lineal ascendant/descendant and explicitly repeats the maternal/paternal qualifier in some items.
        • Practical impact: largely drafting differences; the Act appears intended to clarify inclusions, which reduces disputes on familial coverage for gifts/exemptions.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance hotspots: accurate identification of the head under which a receipt is taxable (e.g., business profits v. other sources v. salaries), documentation to prove payment modes for immovable property agreements, and adherence to thresholds for gifts/property to avoid unintended taxation.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: retain agreements, payment instrument records (account payee cheques/drafts, ECS or prescribed electronic mode confirmations), valuation reports or stamp duty valuation records, records of unit issue price and earlier taxed amounts (for business trust calculations), insurance policy premium history and proofs of deductions/non-deductions, and documents evidencing relationship (for "relative" exemptions) or inheritance/will.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 92 provides a broad residuary head to tax miscellaneous receipts not falling under other heads.
      • Specified bright-line rules apply to gifts, immovable property valuation, insurance proceeds and business trust distributions.
      • Multiple cross-references mean substantive effect depends on definitions and procedures in other sections and Schedules.
      • Taxpayers should preserve payment evidence and valuation records to meet prescribed modes and thresholds.
      • Several exceptions (relatives, marriage, inheritance, registered non-profits, specified transactions) narrow the scope of gift taxation.
      • Detailed computation rules (e.g., A-B-C for business trusts) require tracking historical distributions and earlier taxed amounts.
      • Where the Bill uses enumerated payment modes, future changes may be managed by prescribing additional modes or by cross-reference to a general definition in other sections.

      Full Text:

      Section 92 Income from other sources.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax