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 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

Acts Income Tax