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
    Reassessing Accommodation Entries: Insights from a High Court Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    A Judicial Perspective on Section 148A of the Income Tax Act: Amended Reassessment Provisions
    Case LawsCustoms
    Analyzing Legal Principles in a Gold Smuggling Case: The Role of Co-accused Statements and Procedura...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Threshold set for monetary limits in filing appeals by Revenue: A policy shift towards reducing liti...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Navigating the Legal Consequences of Goods Misdeclaration in Customs Law
    Upholding Procedural Justice in GST Administration: Adjudication of GST demand u/s 74
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    High Court's Stance on Penalty Notices in Tax Law: A Balance Between Procedure and Justice
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Decoding the Penalty Provisions under Section 271(1)(c): Analyzing the Fine Line Between Concealment...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act: Between Legal Intent and Factual Circ...
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    An Analysis of the Natural Justice Principle in Tender Cancellation: A Case Study
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Principles of Natural Justice and Administrative Action: Balancing Municipal Powers and Citizen Righ...
    Navigating Disclosure and Fair Trial in FEMA Proceedings: A Supreme Court Analysis
    Case LawsCustoms
    Legal Issues in Customs Duty Evasion: Penalties
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Assessing Penalties for non-filing of ITR: A Deep Dive into Section 271F of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Addition after survey option as Unaccounted income: Burden to prove and evidence.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Decision on Depreciation and Expenditure
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating Through Reimbursement Expenses, DDT Refunds, and Transfer Pricing Adjustments
    A Judicial Perspective on Locus Standi in Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code Cases
    Navigating Shareholder Rights in Corporate Insolvency: An Analysis of NCLAT’s Decision on the issu...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating Financial Distress: A Legal Analysis of Progressive Tax Instalment Judgments
❯❯
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
    Reassessment under Section 148A: disputed factual issues on accommodation entries directed to the assessing officer for factual determination.
    The High Court required detailed scrutiny of alleged accommodation entries and the genuineness of share transactions under the reassessment procedure, noting taxpayers' disclosure of income as Short Term Capital Gains. Applying precedents on judicial review, the court held that disputed factual questions and the procedural validity of reassessment are to be determined by the Assessing Officer rather than in writ proceedings, absent evidence of arbitrariness or limitation breach.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Section 148A preliminary enquiry limits inquiry to existence of information before reassessment and preserves assessee procedural rights.
    Preliminary enquiries under the post amendment reassessment procedure require the assessing officer to possess tangible information suggesting escaped income and to afford the assessee an opportunity to respond before issuing a reassessment notice; the officer's inquiry at this stage is limited to ascertaining existence of such information and does not adjudicate the merits, while procedural protections-objection, access to information, and appellate remedies-remain available.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Co accused statements: cannot alone ground smuggling conviction; requires corroboration and procedural compliance to protect presumption of innocence.
    A solitary declaration by a co accused is insufficient to establish participation in a smuggling offence without independent corroborative evidence linking the accused to the seized goods or operation; reliance on such statements without examination and opportunity for cross examination undermines their evidentiary value and contravenes fair trial protections and the presumption of innocence.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Monetary limits for appeals reshape Revenue litigation strategy, reducing low stake appeals and encouraging selective prosecution.
    The court treated CBDT instructions on monetary limits as possessing binding effect within the statutory appeals framework, harmonising the right to appeal with monetary limit provisions and applying policy considerations from the National Litigation Policy to limit low stake Revenue appeals; this approach affects Revenue litigation strategy, judicial resource allocation, taxpayer relief, and invites possible legislative clarification regarding retrospective or prospective application.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Misdeclaration of goods: deliberate misstatements attract differential duty, redemption fines and potential confiscation under customs law.
    Misdeclaration of goods in declared quantity and weight violates the statutory declaration regime; an accurate declaration is essential to duty assessment, and material, deliberate discrepancies justify imposition of differential duty, redemption fines and potential confiscation to protect revenue and deter evasion.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Procedural fairness in GST notices: ensure intimation precedes show cause notice and allow reasonable opportunity to reply.
    The case addresses non-compliance with GST notice procedures where intimation in Form GST DRC-01A and a show cause notice under Section 74(1) were issued simultaneously, depriving the taxpayer of a statutory opportunity to reply. Emphasising procedural fairness and the right to a fair hearing, the court required that the taxpayer be allowed to file a response within a specified timeframe and that further proceedings, including any fresh notice, follow after consideration of that reply.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty notice specificity: lack of clarity requires proof of actual prejudice before challenging tax penalties.
    Penalty notices under Section 271(1)(c) read with Section 274 must clearly communicate the specific charge to secure a fair hearing; failure to object during proceedings may constitute acquiescence. Procedural defects do not invalidate penalty proceedings unless the affected party proves actual prejudice, and the burden of demonstrating such prejudice lies with the party alleging breach of natural justice.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Furnishing inaccurate particulars cannot be presumed from mere disallowance; defective notices and bona fide claims constrain penalties.
    Penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income requires proof of knowingly misstated or concealed particulars; mere disallowance of a claim does not suffice. A bona fide, arguable claim should not automatically attract penalty, and a defective or unadapted notice that fails to demonstrate application of mind can vitiate penalty proceedings.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Furnishing inaccurate particulars: claiming non existent depreciation can attract penalty even without willful concealment; notice must be specific.
    Claiming depreciation on non existent assets constitutes furnishing inaccurate particulars of income under the penalty provision; proof of willful concealment is not a necessary ingredient for civil penalty liability. Notices initiating penalty proceedings must be specific and clear to meet natural justice requirements, and factual admissions and reversal of disputed claims are operative in determining whether inaccurate particulars were furnished.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice in tender cancellations: ensure opportunity to be heard; flexibility applies where no actual prejudice arises.
    Natural justice in tender cancellation requires affected parties be given an opportunity to meet allegations; the case highlights an e tender interrupted by an ex parte inquiry, cancellation without prior notice, and allegations of bias. These procedural deficiencies implicate the audi alteram partem principle and render such cancellations arbitrary where parties are not afforded a fair chance to respond. The analysis notes natural justice is flexible and, in absence of actual prejudice, its breach may not invalidate administrative action, while stressing transparency and balanced procedural fairness by public bodies.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Natural justice requires municipal demolition actions to provide adequate notice and a fair hearing before affecting property rights.
    The judgment requires municipal enforcement actions affecting immovable property to rest on clear statutory authority and to respect constitutional property rights, insisting that dispossession or demolition follow lawful procedure. It mandates observance of natural justice, specifically adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard, and embeds these procedural safeguards within principles of transparency, proportionality, and reasoned municipal decision making.
    Case LawsFEMA
    Show AI Summary
    Disclosure obligations ensure accused access to relevant evidence, preserving fair trial rights in FEMA proceedings.
    Disclosure obligations under the Foreign Exchange Management Act require enforcement authorities to furnish accused persons with all relevant documents and evidence to enable preparation of defence, reflecting the right to a fair hearing and natural justice. Investigative confidentiality may justify limited nondisclosure only when authorities demonstrate specific harm, and any withholding must be narrowly tailored, with reasoned determinations that preserve core procedural fairness in FEMA adjudications.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Customs Penalty Jurisdiction affirmed where under invoicing and dual invoicing indicate participation in duty evasion scheme.
    Imposition of penalties under Section 112(a) for alleged under invoicing and dual invoicing was sustained on the basis that receipt of part consideration and issuance of false invoices constituted participation in a scheme to evade customs duty; the offences were treated as occurring within India so the Customs Act applied, co noticee settlements did not extend immunity to others, and a jurisdictional challenge to DRI authority was found inapplicable to the notice issued.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Failure to file return on time triggers penalty under Section 271F even if return is later filed after reassessment notice.
    The summary addresses penalty liability for failing to file the original income tax return by the statutory due date, noting that later filing in response to a reassessment notice does not excuse the late original filing. It emphasizes that initiation of penalty proceedings after completion of reassessment does not automatically vitiate the penalty, and that absence of a valid reason for delay sustains penal consequences under the provision for non-filing.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Burden to prove unaccounted income: additions require admissible evidence, not assumptions from survey reports.
    Burden to prove alleged unaccounted income lies with the revenue; additions based on survey findings and an Inspector's report to re fix sale prices must be supported by admissible evidence. The taxpayer used the percentage of completion method for construction income, and impounded documents from a statutory survey were central to the dispute. Additions founded mainly on assumptions or inspector notes, without corroborative proof linking seized material to unexplained receipts, are susceptible to appellate review.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Depreciation on aircraft recognized when operational preparations precede airworthiness certificate, affecting tax depreciation timing.
    The tribunal treated preparatory expenditures to make a newly acquired aircraft operational as integral to business activity for determining the timing of depreciation, remitted the classification and amortisation of engine improvement and overhaul costs to the assessing officer, allowed component replacement and repair costs as revenue deductions because they did not extend useful life, and confirmed that interest on TDS is not an allowable deduction.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Transfer pricing adjustments shape ALP analysis and documentation requirements for royalties and management fees.
    Dispute involves deductibility of cross border reimbursement payments under Section 37 and whether assessing authorities recorded specific factual findings and afforded fair opportunity before disallowance. Related issues include entitlement to refund of excess Dividend Distribution Tax under the DTAA and the correct application of the Arm's Length Principle-notably choice between TNMM and CUP-for benchmarking royalty and management fees, with emphasis on documentation and comparability analysis.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Locus standi in insolvency proceedings: standing requires a direct, legitimate interest to initiate or challenge IBC processes.
    The commentary examines locus standi under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, focusing on entitlement to initiate, challenge and participate in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. It highlights procedural interactions among the financial creditor, resolution professional and Committee of Creditors, and discusses contested applications for extension of plan implementation, protection of bank guarantees and permission for fresh bids where a bidder failed to perform. The piece stresses that standing depends on a direct, legitimate interest and that courts apply a stringent interest based test when admitting challenges or procedural relief in IBC proceedings.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Shareholder locus standi constrained in insolvency; CoC commercial wisdom insulated from judicial interference absent material illegality.
    Shareholder rights are substantially curtailed after commencement of CIRP: shareholders may file claims in liquidation but lack standing to overturn CoC commercial decisions. The commercial wisdom of the Committee of Creditors is entitled to deference and is reviewable by courts only for material irregularity or legal violation; procedural objections and requests for forensic audit must demonstrate such material illegality to unsettle an approved resolution plan under the IBC.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Instalment payments: courts permit flexible tax instalment schedules for financially distressed corporates while respecting lower court discretion.
    The courts endorsed a flexible instalment framework permitting extension and adjustment of tax payment schedules when a corporate taxpayer demonstrates reduced capacity to pay, including temporary reduction of individual instalments with deficits spread over remaining payments. The appellate decision upheld the lower court's discretion, emphasising deference absent clear error and supporting reasonableness and proportionality in accommodating financial distress while preserving eventual recovery of assessed liabilities.

    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 93 "Deduction" 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 93 Deductions.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Clause 93 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) - a statutory provision setting out permitted deductions in computing income chargeable under the head "Income from other sources." It matters because it prescribes the allowable deductions and limitations that affect taxable income for a broad class of receipts (dividends, interest, pensions, other income). Affects taxpayers receiving such incomes and tax administrators who apply the provision. Effective date or decision date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hook: Clause 93 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - dealing with computation of taxable income under the head "Income from other sources." Context: Specifies permissible deductions and limitations when computing taxable income under that head. Coverage: Enumerates deductions for (a) amounts paid as commission/remuneration for realising dividends or interest on securities; (b) particular incomes referenced in section 92(2)(c) with reference to section 29(1)(e); (c) incomes referenced in section 92(2)(f) and (g) with reference to sections 28(1)(a),(b),(d), 28(2) and 33; (d) family pension with specified amounts limited by whether tax is computed u/s 202(1); (e) other revenue expenditures wholly and exclusively laid out for making or earning the income; (f) 50% deduction for income referred to in section 92(2)(i) with no other deduction allowed; and sub-section (2) addressing non-allowance or limitation of deduction for certain dividend incomes and certain mutual fund/unit incomes. Definitions/explanations provided in the text: Not stated in the document.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      The clause prescribes that income under "Income from other sources" is computed after making enumerated deductions. The deduction categories are as follows:

      • Clause (a): For dividends (excluding those referred to in section 2(40)(f)) or interest on securities - any reasonable sum paid as commission or remuneration to a banker or any other person for the purpose of realising such dividend or interest on behalf of the assessee.
      • Clause (b): For income of the nature in section 92(2)(c) - an amount as per section 29(1)(e), "so far as may be."
      • Clause (c): For income of the nature in section 92(2)(f) and (g) - an amount as per section 28(1)(a), (b), (d), section 33, and subject to the provisions of section 28(2), "so far as may be."
      • Clause (d): For family pension (defined in the text parenthetically as "a regular monthly amount payable by the employer to a family member of an employee upon the death of such employee") - deductible amounts are (i) one-third of such income or Rs. 25,000, whichever is less, where income-tax is computed u/s 202(1); (ii) one-third of such income or Rs. 15,000, whichever is less, in any other case.
      • Clause (e): Any other expenditure (not capital) laid out wholly and exclusively for making or earning such income.
      • Clause (f): For income of the nature in section 92(2)(i) - deduction equal to 50% of such income and no other deduction shall be allowed under this section.
      • Sub-section (2)(a): For dividend income of the nature in section 2(40)(f), no deduction allowed.
      • Sub-section (2)(b): For other dividend income or income from specified mutual fund units or units of a specified company under the Unit Trust of India (Transfer of Undertaking and Repeal) Act, 2002 - only deduction allowed is interest expense limited to 20% of such income for the tax year (and such income is included in total income without deduction under this section prior to applying that limit).

      Interpretation

      The clause adopts a classificatory approach: it first lists categories of income and then prescribes related deductible expenses or fixed deduction amounts. The repeated phrase "so far as may be" in clauses (b) and (c) indicates a limiting or permissive approach to applying cross-referenced provisions (sections 29(1)(e), 28 and 33), implying that only those amounts that are appropriate and allowable under the referenced provisions are to be considered. The text indicates a legislative intent to align the deduction regime for incomes under this head with relevant provisions governing similar expenses in other heads (through cross-references), and to prescribe specific caps or exclusions (e.g., family pension numeric caps, 50% cap for certain incomes, prohibition of deductions for specified dividends).

      Exceptions/Provisos

      No general provisos beyond the numerical or categorical limits are provided in the clause. Specific carve-outs include:

      • Sub-section (2)(a): Complete prohibition of deductions for dividend income referred to in section 2(40)(f).
      • Sub-section (2)(b): Restriction that for certain dividends/units only interest expense is deductible and that deduction is limited to 20% of such income for the tax year.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1 - Commission on dividend realisation: An assessee pays a banker a reasonable commission to realise dividend from listed securities (not covered by section 2(40)(f)). That reasonable commission is deductible under clause (a). (No numerical figures stated in the text; the allowance depends on reasonableness.)
      • Example 2 - Family pension: A family pensioner receives Rs. 30,000 in the year and tax is not computed u/s 202(1). The allowable deduction under clause (d)(ii) is one-third of Rs. 30,000 = Rs. 10,000, subject to the cap of Rs. 15,000; therefore deduction is Rs. 10,000. (This example uses the numerical caps provided in the text.)
      • Example 3 - 50% deduction: An assessee receives income of the nature in section 92(2)(i) amounting to Rs. 100,000. Under clause (f) deduction allowed equals 50% = Rs. 50,000, and no other deduction under this section is permitted against that income.

      Interplay

      Clause 93 cross-references several sections: 2(40)(f), 92(2)(c),(f),(g),(i), 28(1),(2), 29(1)(e), 33 and references Schedule entries (in the enacted text). The Old Version directs application of the substantive provisions of those sections for determining allowable deductions "so far as may be." It therefore requires contemporaneous interpretation with the referenced provisions to determine the nature and scope of allowances. Specific notifications, rules, or circulars: Not stated in the document.

      Differences between Section 93 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 and Clause 93 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version)

      • Addition of specific exemptions: The enacted Section 93 contains two additional sub-clauses (g) and (h) that are absent in the Old Version (Clause 93). Sub-clause (g) provides that "for income in the nature of commutation of pension received from a fund as specified in Schedule VII (Table: Sl. No. 3), the entire amount" is deductible. Sub-clause (h) provides that "for income in the nature of gratuity as referred in section 19(2)(g), received on the death of the employee, the entire amount" is deductible.
        • Practical impact: These additions create express full deductions (i.e., full exemption) for commuted pension from a specified fund and for gratuity received on death, thereby expanding the list of deductible/exempt receipts under the head "Income from other sources" compared to the Bill's old text.
      • Clarification of clause (a) punctuation/scope: In the enacted Section 93 clause (a) the bracketed exclusion is placed as "for dividends [excluding those referred to in section 2(40)(f)] or interest on securities, any reasonable sum..." In the Old Version clause (a) the bracket appears to run "for dividends [excluding those referred to in section 2(40)(f) or interest on securities, any reasonable sum..." - which creates a punctuation/parenthetical ambiguity.
        • Practical impact: The enacted text more clearly excludes only the dividends referred to in section 2(40)(f) from the deduction-qualifying income, while the Old Version's punctuation could be read ambiguously to exclude "interest on securities" from the bracketed exclusion or to misplace the scope of exclusion. The enacted version therefore reduces interpretive uncertainty about the scope of clause (a).
      • Substantive parity otherwise: Apart from the two new sub-clauses and the bracket punctuation, the substantive provisions (clauses (b)-(f) and sub-section (2) clauses (a) and (b)) remain materially the same between the two texts.
        • Practical impact: Taxpayers and administrators can expect the same treatment under those clauses except where the new sub-clauses confer additional deductions/exemptions.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Taxpayers must identify the categorical nature of income (whether it falls under the listed sub-paragraphs or under exclusions such as section 2(40)(f)) to determine available deductions. Misclassification may lead to disallowance (for instance, claiming a commission deduction against dividends that are of the nature in section 2(40)(f)).
      • Record-keeping/evidence points: The provision requires demonstration of "reasonable" commissions/remuneration (clause (a)) and of expenditure "wholly and exclusively" laid out (clause (e)). Therefore, contemporaneous invoices, agreements with bankers/agents, proofs of payment, and documentation justifying reasonableness should be maintained. For limited deductions (e.g., interest limited to 20% under sub-section (2)(b), or the 50% rule under clause (f)), records to show computation and linkage to the specific income item should be kept.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 93 (Old Version) lists specified deductions for computing income under "Income from other sources," including commissions for realising dividends/interest, specified cross-referenced expenses, family pension caps, and a 50% rule for certain incomes.
      • Cross-references to other sections (28, 29, 33, 92(2) items) mean practical application depends on interpreting those provisions in tandem; the Clause uses "so far as may be" to limit application.
      • Certain dividend incomes (section 2(40)(f)) are expressly denied deductions; other dividend-like incomes permit only interest expense up to 20%.
      • Family pension deduction is numerically capped and varies depending on whether tax is computed u/s 202(1).
      • Clause (f) prescribes a single 50% deduction for incomes of a specified nature, expressly prohibiting other deductions under this section for those incomes.
      • Documentation evidencing reasonableness and that expenditures were wholly and exclusively for earning the income will be central to sustaining claims.
      • Legislative intent beyond the text, effective date, transitional provisions, and administrative guidance are not stated in the document.

      Full Text:

      Section 93 Deductions.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax