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 106 "Amount borrowed or repaid through negotiable instrument, hundi, etc." 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 106 Amount borrowed or repaid through negotiable instrument, hundi, etc.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      The document for detailed commentary is Clause 106 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version), titled "Amount borrowed or repaid through negotiable instrument, hundi, etc." It proposes that amounts borrowed or repaid by means other than an account payee cheque shall be treated as the borrower's or repayer's income for the tax year in which the transaction occurs. The provision matters to taxpayers using negotiable instruments or hundis for lending/repayment, to tax authorities assessing income, and to regulated intermediaries. Effective date or decision date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: Clause 106 (Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version) is located in the aggregation of income provisions (Bills classified under "AGGREGATION OF INCOME"). The clause addresses the treatment of amounts borrowed or repaid via particular instruments-negotiable instruments and hundis-when those transactions are effected otherwise than by an account payee cheque, or through modes that the Board may later specify. The text expressly includes interest ("including interest thereof") as part of the amount covered. Definitions or further explanations: Not stated in the document beyond the textual references to "negotiable instrument", "hundi", and "account payee cheque." The Bill contains an explanatory sentence describing the policy that amounts borrowed on a hundi or similar instruments when not passed through an account payee cheque will be deemed income of the borrower/repayer.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      The clause comprises two sub-sections. Sub-section (1) provides: where any amount (including interest thereof) is borrowed or repaid through a negotiable instrument or a hundi, other than an account payee cheque, or through any mode as specified by the Board, the amount so borrowed or repaid shall be deemed to be the income of the person borrowing or repaying, as the case may be, for the tax year in which the amount was borrowed or repaid. Sub-section (2) provides that where such amount has been deemed to be the income of any person under sub-section (1), that person shall not be liable to be assessed again in respect of such amount under that sub-section on repayment of such amount.

      Interpretation

      The provision operates as a deeming rule: it converts a financing transaction (borrowing or repayment) effected by certain instruments or modes into taxable income in the year of borrowing/repayment. The inclusion of interest within the deeming indicates the legislature's intent to treat not only principal but also interest components as taxable when transacted by the specified modes. The clause uses mandatory language ("shall be deemed to be the income"), leaving limited discretion at assessment stage to disregard the deeming when the statutory conditions are satisfied. The provision also empowers the Board to specify alternative modes that will attract the deeming rule, implying subordinate legislation or administrative specification may expand the list of covered modes. Legislative intent (as articulated in the explanatory line in the Bill): to capture off-account or informal credit/repayment channels (notably hundis) wherein funds pass outside bank account cheques, thereby preventing tax avoidance or concealment through non-account-payee channels.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      The clause carves out transactions conducted through an "account payee cheque" from the deeming rule. No other statutory exceptions, thresholds, or provisos are provided in the text. The Board's power to specify modes creates a prospective exception/extension mechanism but no criteria for specification are provided in the clause. Any further conditionality, exemptions, or procedural safeguards: Not stated in the document.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A lends Rs. X to B and receives repayment by a hundi in the same tax year; under Clause 106(1) the amount repaid (including interest) is deemed B's income in that tax year. The Bill's text captures this scenario. (Concrete numeric examples are not provided in the Bill.)

      • Example 2: C borrows money via a negotiable instrument other than an account payee cheque; the borrowed amount is deemed C's income in the year of borrowing. (No further factual details or exceptions are set out in the Bill.)

      Interplay

      The clause references the Board's power to specify additional modes that will trigger the deeming, implying interaction with delegated instruments (notifications/gazette orders) to expand or clarify covered modes. References to other statutory provisions, rules, circulars, or case law are Not stated in the document. Any cross-references to sections dealing with income characterization, disclosure, or penalties are Not stated in the document.

      Differences between the Section 106 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 and Clause 106 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version)

      • Wording and scope: The statutory Section 106 (Income-tax Act, 2025) and Clause 106 (Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version) are substantially similar in substance. Both deem amounts borrowed or repaid through a negotiable instrument or a hundi, other than an account payee cheque (or through any mode specified by the Board), to be the income of the person borrowing or repaying in the year of borrowing/repayment. The Act text explicitly adds the phrase "(including interest thereof)" and in subsection (1) the Act repeats "(including interest paid on the borrowed amount)" when describing the income element; the Bill's text includes "(including interest thereof)" only once and does not reiterate the interest phrase in the second clause.
        • Practical impact: The Act's duplication clarifies that interest component is included both when borrowed and when repaid; the Bill's single insertion conveys the same substantive inclusion but with slightly less repetition. There is no meaningful change in tax effect.
      • Terminology: The Bill uses "a hundi" and speaks of "account payee cheque drawn on a bank" in the explanatory sentence appended to Clause 106. The Act uses "on a hundi" and "an account payee cheque" and adds the alternative phrase "or through any mode as specified by the Board in this behalf."
        • Practical impact: The Act's phrasing and the Board-specifiable mode language are identical in both versions; differences are minor drafting variations and do not alter coverage.
      • Explanatory note: The Bill (old version) contains an appended explanatory sentence describing the clause's intent (that amounts borrowed on a hundi or other instruments not through an account payee cheque shall be deemed income). The Act version does not include that appended sentence in the excerpt provided.
        • Practical impact: The explanatory sentence in the Bill aids legislative intent and clarifies policy aim; its absence in the Act text excerpt may reflect removal of the marginal note or relegation to legislative history, but not a substantive change in liability.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Taxpayers who borrow or repay funds through hundis or non-account-payee negotiable instruments face a risk of those amounts being treated as income in the tax year of transaction. This creates potential timing differences and immediate taxable consequences where such instruments are used. Brokers, moneylenders, and persons dealing in hundis must assess reporting and tax consequences when handling such instruments. The Board's power to specify additional modes may broaden the reach administratively, increasing compliance risk.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: While the clause does not prescribe records, the deeming effect highlights the practical need for documentary evidence to show lawful financing arrangements and to establish whether the transaction was in fact effected by an account payee cheque or by a covered instrument/mode. Taxpayers would logically need to retain originals of negotiable instruments, hundis, bank records, and contemporaneous loan documentation to substantiate the nature of transactions-however prescription of specific records or timelines: Not stated in the document.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 106 is a deeming provision that treats amounts borrowed or repaid through specified non-account-payee modes (negotiable instruments, hundis, and Board-specified modes) as income in the year of borrowing or repayment.
      • The provision expressly includes interest within the amount to be deemed income.
      • Transactions effected by an account payee cheque are explicitly excluded from the deeming rule.
      • Sub-section (2) prevents double taxation: once deemed income on borrowing/repayment, the same amount shall not be assessed again on repayment under the same provision.
      • The provision empowers the Board to identify additional modes that will attract the deeming treatment, signalling scope for administrative expansion.
      • The Bill contains an explanatory sentence clarifying the policy objective to capture off-bank-account instruments; the clause itself does not set out procedural protections or thresholds.
      • Practical effect centers on timing and characterization of amounts where informal or non-account-payee payment channels are used; taxpayers should maintain transaction documentation (the clause itself does not specify records required).

      Full Text:

      Section 106 Amount borrowed or repaid through negotiable instrument, hundi, etc.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax