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
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
    Maximum Marginal Rate and Surcharge for Discretionary Trusts: ITAT Special Bench Clarifies Slab-Base...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Classification of Quicklime under the Customs Tariff: CESTAT Bangalore's Reaffirmation of HSN-Based ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Reassessment Notices Post-Ashish Agarwal and TOLA: Limitation and Sanction u/ss 149 and ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Seizure, Provisional Release and Limitation: Supreme Court on the Interplay of Sections 110(2), 110A...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Prima Facie Adjustments v. Substantive Adjudication: Procedural Boundaries in Return Processing (CPC...
    Survey, Unaccounted Stock (Eye-Estimates) and the Limits of Section 130: Statutory Primacy of Sectio...
    Input Tax Credit Abuse (ITC Fraud) and Judicial Review: Delhi High Court on Natural Justice, RUDs an...
    Writ Jurisdiction and Statutory Appeal in GST Fraud Investigations: A Judicial Re-affirmation
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) Post-Amendment, Accumulated Income and the Sixth Year: Legal Interpretation, Procedura...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Form No.10B & Section 119(2)(b): Condonation of Delay in Tax Exemption Claims: Principles, Precedent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Regulatory Ambit of Import of Second-Hand Electronic Capital Goods: Classification, Exemption and Pr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 195, DTAAs and Software Licences: A Practical Framework for Withholding Tax
    Provisional Attachment under GST: Draconian Powers, Statutory Time-Bars and the Rule of Law: Interpr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 263 Revisited: Jurisdictional Boundaries Where AO Takes a Plausible View on 80G Claims
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional Release in Customs Law: Balancing Revenue Protection and Commercial Fairness - A Compara...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Conditional Re-export and Revenue Safeguards: Judicially Crafted Remedies in Customs Adjudication
    GST Limitation Regime vs Executive Notifications: Judicial Review of Time-Limit Notifications under ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) After Finance Act, 2022: Utilization of Accumulated Income - Deemed Income, Vesting an...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    When Can an ITAT Reopen a Decision? Distinguishing Prior Binding Precedent from Subsequent Case-Law
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment and Jurisdiction: Reconciling JAO Roles with NFAC u/ss 144B & 151A (JAO / FAO)
❯❯
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
    Discretionary trusts taxed at maximum marginal rate must have surcharge computed under slab and threshold rules, not automatically at top rate.
    For private discretionary trusts taxed at the maximum marginal rate under sections 164/167B, the term denotes the highest basic slab rate under the Finance Act, but surcharge on that tax must be computed according to the Finance Act's slab- and threshold-based surcharge provisions; if the trust's total income does not cross the statutory surcharge threshold, no surcharge is leviable despite basic tax being at the top slab rate.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Quicklime classification: impure lime falls under specific tariff heading, not high purity calcium oxide, per HSN purity standard.
    The imported material, chemically tested as impure calcium oxide (about 92.2% CaO with mineral impurities), is classifiable under Heading 2522 10 00 as Quicklime. Chapter Note 1 to Chapter 25 must be read contextually and does not disqualify quicklime from Chapter 25 where the tariff text and HSN Explanatory Notes expressly contemplate calcined quicklime. Heading 2825 is confined to chemically pure calcium oxide (approximately 98% CaO) and its residuary sub-heading cannot displace the specific Heading 2522 unless that purity threshold and absence of impurities are met.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reassessment notices: surviving-time computation under COVID-era relief and new limitation rules renders late notices time-barred.
    The court held that in transitional reassessment cases the appropriate sanctioning authority is determined by when the original three-year expiry fell within the COVID-era relief window, so approval by the ordinarily specified authority for within-three-year cases suffices; limitation is governed by a two-step surviving-time computation measured from the original notice as of the relief-window terminal date, excluding stayed periods and the time allowed to reply, and any later notice issued beyond that surviving time is time-barred under the substituted limitation regime read with the time-relief statute and the legal-fiction continuity.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Seizure of goods: six month statutory limit for issuing show cause notice is mandatory despite provisional release.
    The six month limit in Section 110(2) for issuing a show cause notice after seizure under Section 110(1) is mandatory; only a single six month extension under the first proviso is permissible. Provisional release under Section 110A does not suspend, extend or neutralise that time bar. The 2018 second proviso making the six month rule inapplicable where provisional release is ordered is a substantive change and does not validate pre amendment seizures prolonged without notice.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Prima facie adjustments cannot decide debatable legal claims in return processing; contested deductions require scrutiny procedures.
    When a claimed deduction depends on timely deposit of employee welfare contributions and the legal question is debatable or pending higher adjudication, summary processing adjustments cannot be used to resolve the dispute; such matters require scrutiny or reassessment procedures and the validity of any processing-stage action must be judged by the law and facts existing at the time of processing.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Survey discovered unaccounted stock must be assessed under sections 35(6) and 73/74, not via section 130.
    Tax liability for unaccounted goods found in a survey must be determined under section 35(6) read with sections 73/74 of the GST Act; section 130 cannot be used to quantify tax or levy penalty in such cases. The statutory cross reference to sections 73/74 requires adherence to their procedural safeguards, and quantification based solely on eye estimates during survey is insufficient without proper weighment or verification.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit fraud: writ relief limited where appeals exist; hearings and raw RUDs generally suffice absent prejudice.
    The High Court held that writ jurisdiction must be exercised with restraint in complex ITC fraud matters appealable under Section 107; at least one personal hearing and provision of RUDs as collected by the Department generally suffice absent demonstrable prejudice; detailed allocation of penal liability under Sections 73/74/75(13)/122 requires adjudicatory or appellate factfinding and cannot be resolved in writ proceedings.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Writ jurisdiction limited where statutory appeal exists for fact intensive GST fraud investigations; appellate forum preferred for evidentiary disputes.
    The High Court reaffirmed that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is generally inappropriate where a statutory appeal exists for fact intensive GST investigations alleging fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit through fake invoices. Courts should confine review to jurisdictional defects or breaches of natural justice; detailed evidentiary disputes involving voluminous Relied Upon Documents, recorded statements and transaction chains are better resolved by the specialised appellate forum, which should hear appeals on merits and avoid dismissing on limitation grounds where appropriate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Prospectivity of tax amendments: changes to accumulation rules apply from their effective date, not to prior accruals.
    Interpretation of section 11(3) concludes that, under the pre-amendment text, accumulated charitable funds could be applied in the year immediately following the five-year accumulation period; the 2022/2023 amendment removing that year was treated as prospective under the presumption against retrospective tax imposition. Separately, corrections by the Centralised Processing Centre under section 143(1) are confined to mechanistic errors and should not resolve debatable substantive questions of statutory interpretation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay in tax exemption claims should favor substantive rights over mere technical filing defects when bona fide.
    Equitable application of the Condonation Power requires authorities to admit late Form No.10B filings when short delays or credible explanations would otherwise strip claimants of substantive exemption rights; procedural defects such as digital-signature technicalities must be tested against documentary e-filing evidence and substantial compliance, while administrative safeguards permit subsequent verification of the audit report.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Imported second hand MFDs meeting HSE technical criteria can be exempt from BIS registration and obtain conditional provisional release.
    Where importers produce prima facie evidence that imported second hand MFDs meet the Highly Specialized Equipment (HSE) criteria (limited units per model and physical thresholds such as weight >80 kg), those devices are exempt from compulsory BIS registration under the CRO and fall within the FTP residuary category for second hand capital goods; accordingly, provisional release may be granted on conditions (bond/guarantee and document verification) without prejudice to final adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Royalty characterisation for software determines withholding-non exclusive copies/licenses generally not subject to TDS unless income is chargeable.
    Payments for off the shelf/shrink wrapped software or hardware embedded software that constitute a resale of a copyrighted article or a grant of a non exclusive, restricted licence for internal use do not ordinarily constitute royalty under section 9(1)(vi) or typical DTAA provisions; withholding under section 195 arises only where the non resident's receipts are chargeable to tax in India (e.g., due to a PE or transfer of substantive copyright rights), and retrospective domestic amendments cannot be used to impose past withholding obligations on payors who lacked notice of the expanded definition.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional attachment limits: fixed statutory expiry prevents re-issuance of lapsed attachment orders on same property.
    A provisional attachment under the CGST scheme automatically ceases on expiry of the statutory time limit; once it has lapsed by operation of law, tax authorities have no power to re issue or renew a fresh provisional attachment over the same property on substantially the same grounds, and any such fresh order is void. Procedural rules or executive instructions cannot be used to circumvent this statutory safeguard and must be aligned with the primary legislation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisional jurisdiction cannot overturn a plausible assessment on charitable deductions where donation conditions are met.
    Tribunals held that Explanation 2 limiting CSR expenditure as a business deduction operates within the business income chapter and does not ipso facto bar claims under the donations regime; specific statutory exceptions indicate Parliament's choice to restrict only certain items. A mandatory CSR outlay does not automatically negate donation character where there is no material return, provided donee approval and documentary evidence are established. On revisional power, section 263 cannot be invoked to overturn an assessing officer's tenable, precedent backed view where enquiries were made; revision is justified only if the AO's conclusion is legally untenable or there was no inquiry.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional release of seized imports permitted subject to proportionate security, favouring bonds over bank guarantees before adjudication.
    Provisional release under Section 110 is permitted subject to proportionate protections: payment of duties as self-assessed; payment of a substantive portion (commonly fifty percent) of any departmental differential; and execution of enforceable bonds for the balance. Bank guarantees or cash security for speculative fines prior to adjudication are often disproportionate and may be replaced by bonds, though deliberate mis-declaration, concealment or prohibited imports justify stricter protective measures.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Conditional re-export of detained imports permitted when revenue is secured by enforceable financial guarantees and timelines.
    Courts may permit re-export of detained imports where the anticipated departmental remedy is monetary, provided the importer furnishes enforceable financial safeguards-typically a bond quantifying revenue exposure and a bank guarantee for a calibrated portion of the redetermined value-and complies with prescribed timelines; such orders are without prejudice to the Department's right to complete investigations, adjudicate, assess differential duties, and impose penalties.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Force majeure causation in GST limitation: proximate cause and mandatory council recommendation govern valid time limit extensions.
    Section 168A empowers executive modification of GST limitation periods but operates as delegated legislation subject to strict construction: valid exercise requires (i) a qualifying force majeure event, (ii) inability to complete prescribed actions, and (iii) proximate causation by that event; GST Council recommendation is a mandatory precondition and GIC substitution or post-facto ratification does not cure statutory defect.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Accumulated trust income: Tribunal rulings treat the 2022 amendment as prospective, preserving the prior six year utilisation window.
    Two Tribunal benches held that the Finance Act, 2022 amendment to the accumulation provision is prospective; accumulations made before 1 April 2022 remain governed by the prior law including the additional one year grace, and utilisation within that six year window cannot be taxed for AY 2023 24. The Tribunals relied on the presumption against retrospectivity, the Finance Bill memorandum stating an effective date of 1 April 2023, and fairness doctrines to conclude Parliament did not intend to curtail vested rights retroactively.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tribunal recall power limited: later judicial overruling alone cannot reopen finalized tax orders under review rules.
    The tribunal's power to amend is limited to rectifying a mistake apparent from the record existing at the time of the original order or to taking into account contemporaneous binding precedent not placed before it; a subsequent overruling or clarification by a superior court cannot alone justify recall, in light of the explanatory bar in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC and related authorities.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Concurrent jurisdiction between JAO and faceless authorities affirmed; JAO may initiate reassessment followed by faceless assessment.
    The faceless scheme and RMS produce information that may be surfaced to the JAO, permitting the JAO to conduct the pre-notice inquiry and form satisfaction to issue a notice initiating reassessment; thereafter records may be transmitted for faceless assessment via automated allocation, embodying a two-stage model that preserves both JAO initiation authority and central faceless assessment.

    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