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 124 "Deduction in respect of employer and assessee contribution to pension scheme of Central Government." between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

      2 September, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Section 124 Deduction in respect of employer and assessee contribution to pension scheme of Central Government.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Clause 124 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 proposes deductions in respect of employer contributions (and certain employee contributions) to pension schemes notified by the Central Government. It affects individual taxpayers who are salaried or otherwise employed, employers who contribute to such pension schemes, and guardians making deposits for minors. Effective date or enactment timing: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: Clause 124 is located within the Bill under the chapter heading "Deductions in respect of certain payments" and operates as a proposed tax deduction provision within the Income Tax framework. The text addresses employer contributions to pension schemes notified by the Central Government, individual contributions to the same schemes, deductions available in respect of deposits made for minors, and the tax treatment on receipt of accumulated amounts or annuity payments.

      Definitions or explicit explanatory notes in the clause: The clause defines "salary" for the purposes of the provision as including dearness allowance, if the employment terms so provide, but excluding all other allowances and perquisites. No other statutory definitions (e.g., "pension scheme", "nominee") are provided in the clause itself. For other terms and administrative definitions, Not stated in the document.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Coverage: Clause 124 applies to an assessee who is an individual employed by an employer and to "any other assessee, being an individual" in relation to amounts paid or deposited by that person in his account under a pension scheme notified by the Central Government. The Clause allows:

      • A deduction of the employer's contribution to the employee's account under a notified pension scheme, up to a percentage of the employee's salary in the tax year - 14% where the employer is the Central or State Government; 10% where the employer is any other employer.
      • A substitution where an individual's total income is chargeable u/s 202(1): the 10% in the non-government employer case is treated as 14%.
      • A deduction for amounts paid or deposited by an individual into his own account under a notified pension scheme, subject to an overall cap of Rs.50,000.
      • An identical deduction for deposits made to a minor's account by the guardian, with an aggregate cap combined with the individual's Rs.50,000 limit.

      Interpretation

      Legislative intent and interpretive principles indicated by the text: The clause aims to incentivise pension savings by granting tax deductions for employer contributions (with different caps for government versus non-government employers) and to allow individuals and guardians to obtain tax relief for personal deposits into notified pension schemes. The 14%/10% split suggests a policy recognition of government employers' higher contribution norms. The clause also employs deeming provisions to tax withdrawals or annuity receipts where tax benefits were earlier claimed. The limitation on deductions overlapping with section 123 is an anti-double-dip measure.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Carve-outs and conditions expressly provided in the Clause include:

      • Where total income is chargeable u/s 202(1), the 10% ceiling for non-government employers is treated as 14% (sub-section (2)).
      • Cap of Rs.50,000 applies to individual payments/deposits in a tax year (sub-section (3)).
      • Aggregate cap for guardian deposits to a minor is combined with the individual cap (sub-section (4)).
      • No deduction under sub-section (3) where the same amount already qualified for deduction u/s 123 (sub-section (5)).
      • Deeming of amounts received on closure, opting out, or as annuity as taxable income in the year of receipt (sub-section (6)); exceptions for amounts received by nominees/guardians on death are specified (sub-sections (7)-(8)).

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A non-government employer contributes an amount equal to 9% of an employee's salary to a notified pension scheme in a tax year - the employee may claim deduction for the full employer contribution because it does not exceed the 10% ceiling.
      • Example 2: An individual deposits Rs.60,000 into his account under a notified pension scheme during the tax year - deduction allowable is capped at Rs.50,000; the excess Rs.10,000 is not deductible under this clause.
      • Example 3: A guardian deposits Rs.30,000 into a minor's notified pension account, and the guardian also deposits Rs.25,000 into his own account in the same year - aggregate deduction limited to Rs.50,000, so Rs.5,000 of the combined deposits would not be deductible.

      Interplay

      Interaction with other provisions explicitly mentioned: sub-section (5) cross-references section 123 to prevent overlapping deductions. No other specific Rules, Notifications or Circulars are referenced in the Clause. For links to other legislative or administrative instruments beyond section 123, Not stated in the document.

      Differences between Section 124 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 and Clause 124 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - (Old Version)

      • Parent/guardian terminology in sub-section (4):

        Clause 124 (Bill): refers to the assessee "being the guardian of such minor".

        Section 124 (Act): refers to the assessee "being the parent or guardian of such minor".

        Practical impact: Act explicitly includes parent (in addition to guardian) as a person permitted to deposit for minor and claim deduction; that widens the class of persons who can claim aggregate deduction for deposits to a minor.

      • Cross-reference to section 123 in sub-section (5):

        Clause 124 (Bill): "No deduction under sub-section (3) shall be allowed in respect of the amount on which a deduction has been claimed and allowed u/s 123."

        Section 124 (Act): sub-section (5) states "No deduction under sub-section (3) and (4) shall be allowed in respect of the amount on which a deduction has been claimed and allowed u/s 123." - Act extends bar to both sub-sections (3) and (4).

        Practical impact: Act prevents double claiming for contributions made for a minor where guardian/parent seeks deduction under sub-section (4); Bill only barred sub-section (3). This closes an avenue for duplicate deductions and clarifies anti-double-claim rule.

      • Deeming and taxation on receipt (sub-sections (6)-(8)):

        Both texts contain similar deeming provisions treating amounts received on closure/opt-out or as annuity as income when received, and carve-outs where nominee/guardian receiving on death is not taxed. The Act contains additional sub-sections (11) and (12) and references to "Unified Pension Scheme" and "pool corpus"/"individual corpus".

        Practical impact: The Act adds explicit treatment for Unified Pension Scheme subscribers and transfers to pool corpus, clarifying taxability on superannuation/voluntary retirement and exclusions when amounts are transferred to pool corpus; the Bill lacks these specifics. This is a substantive expansion of coverage in the Act to specific schemes and modes of transfer.

      • Definition/term clarification (sub-section (13)):

        Section 124 (Act) adds clause (13) defining "pool corpus" and "individual corpus" by reference to a specific Department of Financial Services Notification (F. No. FX-1/3/2024-PR dated 24 January 2025), and clarifies the meaning of "salary". Clause 124 (Bill) includes the "salary" definition but does not include clause (13) or the notification cross-reference.

        Practical impact: Act ties certain terms to an external notification, creating a linkage to administrative definitions and making the provision more scheme-specific; Bill is more generic. This affects interpretive certainty and reliance on administrative instruments.

      • Nominee receipt on death (sub-sections (7) & (8)):

        Both texts contain similar non-taxation of nominee/guardian receipt on death, but the Act includes slightly different phrasing in (8) referencing parent/guardian/nominee of a minor; the Bill only references "guardian or nominee".

        Practical impact: Act broadens the protective non-taxation language to explicitly include parent in addition to guardian/nominee where minor dies.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Taxpayers must ensure employer contribution amounts are within the prescribed percentage ceilings (14% for government employers; 10% for others) and that personal deposits do not exceed the Rs.50,000 cap. Guardians should track aggregate deductions between their own deposits and deposits for minors to avoid exceeding the Rs.50,000 limit. Where amounts have already been claimed u/s 123, taxpayers must not claim a duplicate deduction under sub-section (3).
      • Record-keeping/evidence points: Employers and employees should maintain contemporaneous records evidencing employer contributions (amount, date, scheme notified by Central Government), terms of employment evidencing dearness allowance inclusion in "salary", receipts for personal and guardian deposits into notified pension scheme accounts, and any documentation supporting the use of withdrawn amounts to purchase an annuity in the same tax year (to trigger non-deeming under sub-section (9)).

      Key Takeaways

      • Employer contributions to Central Government-notified pension schemes are deductible in computing an employee's total income up to specified percentage ceilings of salary (14% for government employers; 10% for others).
      • Individuals may claim a deduction up to Rs.50,000 for personal deposits into notified pension scheme accounts; the same cap applies on aggregate when the guardian deposits for a minor.
      • Amounts on which deductions were previously allowed become taxable on receipt (on closure, opting out, or as annuity) in the year of receipt; limited exceptions apply on death.
      • Duplicate deduction is barred where the same amount has been claimed u/s 123.
      • "Salary" is defined to include dearness allowance if terms of employment so provide; other allowances and perquisites are excluded.
      • Where total income is chargeable u/s 202(1), the non-government employer ceiling is treated as 14% rather than 10%.
      • Practical compliance requires careful record-keeping of contributions, deposit receipts, and evidence of annuity purchase to establish tax treatment on receipt of funds.

      Full Text:

      Section 124 Deduction in respect of employer and assessee contribution to pension scheme of Central Government.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax