Loading...

⚠ ✕
❮ 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 characters 0/2000
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 ✕
🔎 Filters / Advanced Search ❯
TEXT

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.
Relevance Default Date
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Retrospective Amendments and the Doctrine of Vested Rights: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Upholding Equality: HC Strikes Down Discriminatory Circular on Charitable Trust Approvals
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Judicial Review of Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) Orders: Navigating the Boundaries
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Assessee's Lackadaisical Conduct Leads to Dismissal of Income Tax Appeal
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Appeal Scheme: Lessons from the Judgement on Delayed Filing and Deduction u/...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Unraveling the Maze of Round-Tripping: The Doctrine of "Source of Source" in Share Capital Transacti...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Upholding the Transfer of Assessment Proceedings u/s 127: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Share Premium Addition u/s 68: Demystifying Share Premium Transactions
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Intricacies of Income Tax Penalty u/s 271(1)(c): Fairness in Tax Administration
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Scope and Limitations under Income Tax Act
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of Search and Seizure Assessments: Unraveling the Intricacies of Section...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interpreting Section 80G Provisions: ITAT's Stance on Charitable Institution Registration
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interpreting the Scope and Limits of Sections 153A and 153C: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Section 153C and the Necessity of AO's Satisfaction: A Detailed Judicial Analysis
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Royalty or Business Income? High Court Clarifies Taxation of Remittances against Software Purchase
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Complexities
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Faceless Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment: Validity of Notice Issued by the Jurisdictional A...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Court Upholds Deduction for Operational Hotel under Section 35AD Despite Administrative Delays
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Landmark Ruling: Leasing Businesses Entitled to Depreciation Benefits
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Court Decision on Convertible Debentures Expenses : Revenue or Capital Expenditure?
❮
❯
❯❯
Maximize Maximize Maximize
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 Summaries Hide All Summaries
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Vested rights preserved against retrospective tax amendments; filings made before enactment remain effective for settlement consideration.
The court addressed whether a retrospective Finance Act amendment prohibiting settlement applications from a specified date could divest a taxpayer who filed earlier of its vested right to have the application considered. It held that retrospective legislation cannot take away rights already accrued by actions completed before enactment unless clearly intended; that section 119 confers time-extension power but cannot impose new substantive eligibility conditions; and that administrative delay by revenue does not justify denying access where an application was already filed.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Reasonable classification principle: differential deadline for charitable trust tax recognition cannot lack rational basis or equality protection.
A departmental circular extended a filing deadline for tax recognition to mitigate hardship but excluded newly formed charitable trusts without offering reasons; the exclusion lacked an intelligible differentia and rational nexus to the circular's object, making the differential treatment arbitrary and ultra vires the constitutional guarantee of equality, requiring the excluded applications to be treated as within time and decided on merits.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
ITSC jurisdiction extends beyond application disclosures, while full and true disclosure and narrow judicial review govern settlement oversight.
The Income Tax Settlement Commission may inquire into and decide issues disclosed in the application and any other matters relating to the case as reflected in the Commissioner's report or uncovered by further inquiry; full and true disclosure is mandatory and amendments or contradictory positions that undermine that requirement are impermissible, yet contesting taxability before the Commission does not automatically negate disclosure; judicial review is limited to statutory contravention, prejudice, fraud, bias or malice, while sufficiency of materials placed before the Commission is generally beyond routine court scrutiny.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Delay condonation denied where litigant's evasive conduct and non participation failed to constitute sufficient cause for appeal filing.
The court refused condonation of delay for filing an appeal where a best judgment assessment treated cash bank deposits as unexplained after the assessee failed to file returns or participate in proceedings; reliance on transition to a faceless e filing regime and lack of alerts was held insufficient, as the assessee's evasive and habitual non participation did not amount to sufficient cause warranting condonation under the applicable doctrine.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Sufficient cause for delay in filing appeals rejected where faceless scheme migration did not excuse prolonged inaction.
The court held that migration to a faceless appeal system did not, without persuasive evidence, constitute sufficient cause to condone a lengthy delay in filing an appeal, finding the explanation reflective of litigant inaction rather than unavoidable impediment. On tax deduction, the court applied authority that a non-obstante clause does not negate the employer's obligation to deposit employees' statutory contributions by the due date as a condition for claiming the deduction, and treated the appeal as meritless and barred by limitation.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Source of source doctrine used to pierce the corporate veil where share capital appears round tripped among related entities.
The assessee must prove identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of investors under section 68; examination extends to the true origin of funds where bank records show circular transfers, related party directorships, lack of business operations, and arbitrary share premium, permitting lifting the corporate veil and application of the source of source doctrine to treat such receipts as not satisfactorily explained.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Transfer of assessment proceedings for coordinated investigations and administrative convenience upheld where procedural safeguards and factual links exist.
The judgment explains that transfers of assessment proceedings pursuant to the statutory transfer power may be justified for coordinated enquiries and administrative convenience, provided the decision is not capricious or mala fide. Authorities must afford an opportunity to be heard and consider objections; where factual indicia exist - for example, disclosed transactions such as unsecured loans with searched persons - centralisation can be sustained. The convenience of the assessee is relevant but subservient to effective adjudication and tax collection, and transfers supported by procedural compliance and factual nexus are not arbitrary.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Burden of proof in share premium cases: failure to prove investor identity and genuineness sustains addition under section 68.
The assessment of share premium under section 68 requires the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of investors who subscribe at a premium. The court scrutinised disparate allotments made on consecutive days, examined subscribing companies' financials, and applied the doctrine of "source of source" restrictively, holding that incorporation papers or bank payments alone do not discharge the burden. Absent cogent evidence tracing funds to lawful origin and demonstrating commercial rationale for large premiums, additions under section 68 are supportable.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Strict construction of penalty provisions prevents penalty where taxpayer disclosed omitted income before assessment notice.
The legal focal point is whether Section 271(1)(c) can be invoked where an assessee disclosed omitted income and paid differential tax before initiation of reassessment. Penal provisions require strict construction, and Explanation 1 treats a pre-notice satisfactory explanation and admission of additional income as accepted, precluding characterization as concealment. Additionally, a penalty notice must specify the particular ground for proceeding; failure to do so renders the notice defective and undermines the basis for penalty.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Scope of reassessment: AO may address newly noticed income but remains constrained by the recorded reasons for reopening.
Where the AO has recorded reasons to believe income escaped assessment, the AO may assess or reassess issues that come to notice during reassessment, but if no additions or modifications are ultimately made in respect of the issues that formed the basis for reopening, the AO cannot make additions or modifications relating solely to other matters that were part of the original assessment. Explanation 3 applies only after reassessment power is validly invoked and cannot be used to deviate from or supplant the recorded reasons.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Corroboration requirement for search statements: unsupported search statements cannot sustain additions without linked incriminating material and fair cross examination.
Additions for alleged accommodation entries cannot rest solely on statements recorded during search operations; such statements require corroboration by material found in the search that is specifically linked to the assessee. The assessing officer must articulate a factual nexus between seized group material and the assessee, and procedural fairness-including provision of relevant statements and opportunity for cross-examination-is essential. Cure provisions do not validate jurisdictional defects arising from absence of requisite notice or lack of incriminating material.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Registration under Section 80G: provisional approval permits subsequent final registration regardless of prior commencement of activities.
The Tribunal held that institutions granted provisional approval under the First Proviso to Section 80G(5) are entitled to apply for final registration under the proviso's final-registration clause, and that the relevant date of commencement is to be counted from activities undertaken after grant of provisional registration; a prior commencement of activities before provisional grant cannot alone justify rejection of a final-approval application.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Search assessment provisions under Sections 153A and 153C override ordinary reassessment time limits; asset-threshold verification required.
The judgment holds that search-triggered assessment provisions function as non-obstante clauses displacing ordinary reassessment time limits, distinguishes the enduring liability to tax from the temporal right to assess, prescribes that block periods are computed from the year of search (or date of receipt of seized records for non-searched persons), and treats the asset-represented income threshold as a mandatory, aggregable precondition requiring the assessing officer's recorded satisfaction.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Seized-material nexus under Section 153C: AO must form reasoned satisfaction before reopening assessments for specific years.
Section 153C requires the Assessing Officer to form a reasoned satisfaction that seized material during a search has a bearing on an assessee's total income before initiating assessments; mere discovery is insufficient, and the AO must identify specific assessment years, map incriminating material year-wise, and record reasons to justify abatement or reopening.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Royalty classification of software payments: remittances for software purchases are not treated as royalty under established precedent.
Where distribution agreements or End User License Agreements do not grant any proprietary interest or a right to use copyright, payments for acquiring computer software are not to be characterised as royalty; this conclusion follows controlling precedent and DTAA considerations and renders an Assessing Officer's contrary classification inconsistent with the correct legal interpretation.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Reopening assessments: procedural compliance and substantive escapement requirements determine validity of reassessment notices.
The judgment examines validity of notices under Section 148, holding that TOLA does not apply retrospectively for the assessment year at issue and notices issued after the statutory cutoff cannot be back-dated. Notices barred by the limitation in Section 149(1) are ineffective. Procedural prerequisites - notably issuance of a Document Identification Number and issuance through automated allocation by the faceless centre rather than direct action by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer - are mandatory. Substantively, reopening requires escapement of income in the form of an asset, expenditure, transaction, event, or book entry; a mere change of opinion or dispute over an ordinarily allowed deduction does not meet that threshold.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Faceless assessment: issuance of section 148 reopening notices by jurisdictional assessing officers inconsistent with faceless regime.
The faceless assessment framework under Section 151A and the Scheme dated 29 March 2022 allocates exclusive jurisdiction to either the Faceless Assessment Officer or the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for issuance of reopening notices and assessments; actions by an authority outside its assigned jurisdiction are inconsistent with the faceless regime and cause prejudice to the taxpayer as a matter of law.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Deduction eligibility for operational hotels affirmed despite administrative delay in star classification, focusing on substantive compliance.
The court addressed entitlement to a deduction under Section 35AD(5)(aa) where a hotel began operations and generated income in the relevant year and a timely application for star classification was submitted, but formal certification was delayed due to administrative inspections; the court applied a purposive construction to allow the deduction when substantive operational conditions were satisfied and delay was not the assessee's fault.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Depreciation entitlement for leasing companies where contractual ownership and business use are established, allowing higher depreciation rates.
A lessor retains entitlement to depreciation where lease terms demonstrate exclusive ownership rights, repossession power, return obligations and inspection rights, and where the asset is used in the course of the lessor's leasing business; actual physical use by the lessor is not required. Leasing activity that functionally equates to hiring can qualify assets for an enhanced rate of depreciation despite registration in the lessee's name.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Revenue classification of debenture issuance expenses upheld as revenue expenditure despite later conversion into equity.
Expenses incurred to issue convertible debentures that are raised to provide working capital are to be treated as revenue expenditure because classification depends on the purpose and usage of the expenditure, and future conversion into shares does not change its revenue character.

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

Showing Results for :
Reset Filters
No Records Found

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

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

Acts Income Tax