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 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 ✕
🔎 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.
Relevance Default Date
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS to the Government
    Case Laws Income Tax
    A Landmark Judgment on Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS ...
    A Case of Coerced Input Tax Credit Reversal - GST recovery during search and seizure proceedings.
    Manner of compliance of conditions of pre-deposit - Debit of amount from electronic credit ledger (E...
    The need for clarity and concrete reasons in the cancellation of GST registrations.
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Validity of reopening of assessment - need for a direct link between the portal's information and th...
    Case Laws Benami Property
    Application of provisions of section 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 ...
    Case Laws Customs
    Provisional release of imported goods (apples) - The dispute centers on the valuation of the import...
    Case Laws Benami Property
    Applicability of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Disallowance of expenses - need for tax authorities to have a practical understanding of the nature ...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Disallowance of the assessee's business expenditure claims related to the purchase of sugarcane from...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Additions made u/s 69 and Section 56 in the absence of direct incriminating evidence linking the ass...
    Case Laws Customs
    Whether penalty is to be imposed when the appellant has accepted the classification and paid the ent...
    Case Laws Customs
    Liability for payment of customs duty on sale of excess liquor from the duty-free shop
    Case Laws Customs
    Demand of customs duty beyond normal period of limitation on the ground of change in classification ...
    Case Laws Corporate Laws
    Stringent approach towards ensuring compliance with auditing standards - importance of auditors' res...
    Whether the appellant's claim can be classified as a Financial Debt or Operational Debt under the In...
    Scope of Approval of resolution plan - Allegations of undervaluation of the Corporate Debtor's asset...
    Denial of Input Tax Credit since the GST registration of the Supplier of Goods has been Cancelled wi...
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) is a vested right or concession - Can government impose conditions or restric...
❯❯
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
TDS credit entitlement affirmed: deductee entitled to credit despite deductor's non-deposit, preventing indirect recovery.
Credit for tax deducted at source on interest payments is to be treated as tax paid on the deductee's behalf and does not depend on the deductor's remittance; statutory protections against indirect recovery prevent the revenue from seeking the same tax from the deductee when the deductor fails to deposit the deducted amount, and the deposit requirement in the applicable provisions does not negate the deductee's entitlement to such credit.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Tax credit for TDS: deductee entitled to credit even if deductor failed to deposit the retained tax with government.
The Court treats amounts retained by a deductor as remaining tax and concludes the statutory credit mechanism for tax deducted at source does not condition a deductee's entitlement on the deductor having deposited the retained amount with the government, thereby barring indirect recovery or adjustment against the deductee where tax has been deducted at source.
Case Laws GST
Show AI Summary
Coercive tax collection prohibited; forced reversal of input tax credit during search deemed impermissible, with investigatory remedies preserved.
Dispute involved a search under Section 67 and an alleged coerced reversal of Input Tax Credit from the petitioner's Electronic Credit Ledger for supplies from a supplier with retrospectively cancelled registration; the court found such coercive recovery during search impermissible and directed restoration of the ITC while preserving the department's power to investigate and, if ineligible or fraudulent ITC is found, pass appropriate protective orders.
Case Laws GST
Show AI Summary
Pre-deposit payment method: Electronic credit ledger debit does not satisfy pre-deposit; cash ledger payment required for appeals.
Pre-deposit for appeals under the CGST/BGST regime must be paid from the cash ledger; debit from the electronic credit ledger does not satisfy the statutory pre-deposit requirement. A revenue circular restricting ECRL use to certain output tax payments and excluding reverse charge, interest, penalties, fees, and similar amounts supports that ECRL cannot be used for pre-deposit. The court emphasized the statutory payment scheme and strict appeal filing timelines, rejecting arguments that ECRL debit could substitute for cash ledger payment.
Case Laws GST
Show AI Summary
Requirement of clear reasons in GST cancellation: retrospective deregistration must be reasoned and consider input tax credit effects.
Cancellation of GST registration must be supported by clear reasons and concrete factual findings in show cause notices and cancellation orders; labels that a registration is "liable to be cancelled" without specifying dues or factual basis constitute mechanical action. Retrospective cancellation cannot be applied routinely; authorities must follow statutory procedure, assess causes for non-filing, consider exceptional disruptions to business operations, and account for the impact on input tax credit before fixing an effective date of cancellation.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Use of portal data: digital information needs a direct evidential link before reopening income tax assessments.
Reopening assessments requires a direct evidential link between portal-derived information and the income alleged to have escaped assessment; portal data alone is insufficient without documentary support for transactions or gifts, and a show cause notice must provide adequate particulars and reflect proper consideration of the taxpayer's response before reassessment proceeds.
Case Laws Benami Property
Show AI Summary
Non retrospective application of punitive benami provisions affirmed, limiting enforcement to post amendment transactions.
Application of Section 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 concerns whether punitive provisions enacted in 2016 apply to transactions predating the amendment. The Appellate Tribunal relied on Supreme Court precedent that such punitive provisions must be applied prospectively, and the High Court emphasized adherence to that interpretation while allowing parties to pursue further remedies pending the Supreme Court review.
Case Laws Customs
Show AI Summary
Provisional release of perishable imports allowed pending valuation, subject to provisional assessment and bond to protect revenue interests.
The dispute concerns provisional release of perishable imported apples amid a valuation contest tied to a stayed minimum import price notification. The instrument requires provisional assessment of the Bill of Entry within a brief timeframe and permits conditional provisional release upon the importer furnishing a bond and meeting terms set by customs, thereby reconciling the protection of revenue interests with the practical need to avoid loss to perishable consignments pending final resolution of the notification's applicability.
Case Laws Benami Property
Show AI Summary
Prospective application of punitive benami amendment upheld, limiting reach to post-enactment transactions and preserving pre-enactment protections.
The Madras High Court affirmed that the enhanced punitive provision introduced by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 is substantive and applies prospectively; it endorsed the Tribunal's reliance on the Supreme Court's Ganapati Dealcom decision, treated a pending Supreme Court review petition as not displacing that precedent, and disposed of the appeals while allowing further proceedings consistent with prospectivity and prior constitutional findings.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Disallowance of expenses must rest on specific documentation defects, not on blanket percentage adjustments.
Disallowance of business expenses on a summary or estimate basis requires specific, pointed deficiencies and cannot rest on generalized conclusions about excessiveness; in businesses with routine small transactions, tax authorities must examine the nature of operations and identify particular defects in documentation before applying blanket percentage disallowances.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Statutory Minimum Price interpretation: excess cane payments treated as appropriation of profits, not deductible business expense.
The core issue is whether payments for sugarcane in excess of the Statutory Minimum Price (SMP) are deductible business expenditures or constitute an appropriation of profits. The Assessing Officer relied on standard accounting practice requiring provisions for liabilities at year end and treated post closing excess payments as distributions of operational surplus. The appellate view upheld that cooperative status does not alter the tax analysis and that payments beyond the SMP do not qualify as allowable business expenses absent proper provisioning within the accounting period.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Direct incriminating evidence requirement: third party search materials alone cannot sustain unexplained investment additions.
Additions alleged as unexplained investments and undisclosed interest income based on third party search materials require a demonstrable direct nexus between those seized records and the assessee; absent such direct incriminating evidence, reliance on third party statements or documents is insufficient. Procedural safeguards and transactional indicia-such as cross examination opportunities, banking records, documentary support, and TDS-reduce the probative value of seized material when direct linkage is lacking.
Case Laws Customs
Show AI Summary
Penalty under Section 114A: no justification where importer accepted correct classification and paid differential duty before notice.
Issue: imposition of a penalty for alleged suppression when the importer accepted correct tariff classification and paid the differential duty with interest before issuance of a show cause notice. The importer attributed the earlier misclassification to an agent error and denied intent to evade duty. The authority observed the accurate product description, admission of correct classification and prompt payment, concluded absence of suppression of facts and determined that the statutory penalty provision was not justified on these facts.
Case Laws Customs
Show AI Summary
Liability under Section 72: duty rests with duty-free shop licence-holder when trade facility conditions are breached.
Duty arises where a duty-free shop licence-holder breaches voucher and recordkeeping conditions under the trade facility; the licence-holder bears responsibility for payment of duty and interest when procedural requirements are violated, while penalty depends on culpability and may be disallowed where no intent to evade duty is established and customs were aware of the transactions.
Case Laws Customs
Show AI Summary
Extended limitation in customs demands inapplicable where no suppression, limiting reassessment for CVD on undeclared MRP entries.
Reassessment and CVD demand arose from a post-clearance change in classification and retrospective reliance on MRP for past entries; the tribunal held that items described were essential refrigeration parts rather than accessories, that MRP-based reassessment requires clear factual basis, and that the Extended Period of Limitation is inapplicable where no suppression is established, although penalty issues may still be considered where omissions occur.
Case Laws Corporate Laws
Show AI Summary
Auditor responsibility reinforced: regulatory findings against audit failures stress strict adherence to auditing standards and sanctions.
NFRA found a statutory auditor guilty of professional misconduct for failures to comply with Standards on Auditing, including inadequate procedures to verify revenue, lack of physical inventory verification, insufficient going concern assessment, deficient materiality application, and inadequate communication with Those Charged with Governance, and applied regulatory sanctions to reinforce auditor responsibilities in preserving financial reporting integrity.
Case Laws IBC
Show AI Summary
Operational debt classification confirmed for supplier's claim based on the transaction's nature under the insolvency framework.
Whether a claim from a supply arrangement is a Financial Debt or an Operational Debt depends on the transaction's substantive character. The tribunal examined contractual terms-penalties for non-delivery, interest, and security cheques-and applied precedents on the financial-versus-operational distinction. It characterised the supplier's claim, filed under Section 9, as arising from the supply of goods and therefore as an operational debt, sustaining the Resolution Professional's and Adjudicating Authority's classification.
Case Laws IBC
Show AI Summary
Commercial wisdom of committee of creditors governs resolution plan approval, limiting valuation and standing challenges by promoters.
Exclusion of the creditor was non irregular as no claim was filed; undervaluation allegations were rejected since opportunities to raise them during the CIRP were not used; the resolution plan satisfied Committee approval requirements and reflected the Committee's commercial wisdom; and a suspended director/promoter lacked standing to challenge the approved plan, underscoring limited judicial interference post approval.
Case Laws GST
Show AI Summary
Input tax credit denial over supplier deregistration; remanded for document verification and fresh adjudication to determine genuineness.
Denial of Input Tax Credit was challenged where the supplier's registration was retrospectively cancelled; the petitioner paid through bank and the supplier appeared on records at the time. The High Court remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, directing the appellate authority to reconsider the petitioner's documentary evidence, hold a hearing, and pass a reasoned order verifying genuineness and timing of transactions; if purchases are genuine and occurred prior to cancellation, ITC is to be considered per precedent.
Act Rules GST
Show AI Summary
Input Tax Credit as legislative concession: entitlement subject to statutory conditions, but retrospective deprivation of vested accruals is vulnerable.
Input Tax Credit (ITC) is a legislative concession, not a vested right, so the legislature may lawfully prescribe eligibility conditions and procedural limits which taxpayers must strictly satisfy; however, retrospective amendments that destroy or diminish an already accrued entitlement are susceptible to challenge and have been treated as impermissible when they impair rights that vested before the amendment.

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

Showing Results for :
Reset Filters
No Records Found

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

whatsapp Join 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

Acts Income Tax