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
    The Legal Contours of Input Tax Credit Eligibility: Procedural Aspects of GST and ITC
    Case LawsService Tax
    Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM): Service Tax Implications for Exporters: A Legal Perspective on Forei...
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Cheque Dishonour and Corporate Responsibility: Analyzing the Supreme Court's Latest Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Notices / orders without DIN. The Critical Role of Procedural Compliance in Tax Administ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Tax Exemptions: Capitation Fees in Educational Institutions: A Legal Quagmire
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Procedural Technicalities vs. Substantive Justice in Tax Administration: A High Court Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revision u/s 263 and denial of deduction u/s 80IA: A Critical Analysis of the Delhi High Court's Jud...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Condonation of Delay and Jurisdictional Challenges: A Case Analysis of ITAT Kolkata's Decision
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Legal Analysis: Scrutiny of Share Capital and Premium Under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Judicial Scrutiny of Retrospective Cancellation of Charitable Trust Registration: A Case Analysis of...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Office and Prosecution under Income Tax Act: Jurisdiction of Trial Court - Decision in a High Profil...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxation of Unexplained Income at Higher Rate of tax u/s 115BBE : A Comprehensive Analysis of the IT...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Analysis of ITAT Mumbai Judgment - Transfer Pricing Adjustment Dispute: Period of limitation u/s 144...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    In-Depth Analysis of Key Issues in the ITAT Chennai Judgement
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Doctrine of Merger in Income Tax Assessment: An Analysis of ITAT Chennai's Recent Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Delay in refund processing, the petitioner's entitlement to interest, and the court's decision to gr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Rejection of revision application u/s 264 in favor of assessee: A beneficial provision of Income Tax...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    An Analysis of ITAT Decision on International Taxation, Capital Gains, and DTAA
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxability of CSR fund: Treatment of certain funds received by an entity, particularly focusing on w...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Legal Analysis of ESOP Deduction and allowability in the Revised Return of income: An ITAT decision.
❯❯
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 LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit eligibility: procedural limits on reversing claims without supplier inquiry and GSTR-2A non-reflection not dispositive.
    Section 16(2) sets the statutory conditions for Input Tax Credit-tax invoice, receipt, tax payment, and return filing-and GSTR-2A serves only as a facilitator; non-reflection there does not automatically negate eligibility. Tax authorities must inquire into supplier conduct and observe procedural safeguards before reversing ITC or recovering tax from the recipient, with judicial precedents and CBIC clarifications shaping when exceptions may apply.
    Case LawsService Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reverse charge mechanism: exporter not liable for foreign bank charges when Indian bank is the direct service recipient.
    The core issue is whether an exporter is liable under the Reverse Charge Mechanism for foreign bank charges deducted from export proceeds when those charges are imposed on and paid by an Indian intermediary bank. The Tribunal's analysis focuses on the definition of service recipient and territorial scope, concluding that the direct recipient-the Indian bank-is the party liable to discharge service tax while the exporter, as an indirect beneficiary without direct dealings with the foreign bank, is not subject to reverse charge.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Directorial liability: strict averment requirement prevents presuming directors' responsibility without specific allegation, leading to quashing.
    The Court held that directorial liability requires specific averment that the director was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the time of the offence; mere titular position or awareness of cheque issuance is insufficient. It emphasized the necessity of serving the statutory notice prerequisite and rejected liberal construction to cure absent statutory averments, quashing proceedings against directors for non-compliance.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    DIN requirement in tax administration: absence of mandatory DIN can invalidate assessment orders unless exceptional circumstances apply.
    Failure to quote the mandatory computer-generated Document Identification Number (DIN) in assessment orders, as required by the CBDT Circular from 1 October 2019, constitutes a procedural defect that can render the order invalid unless the revenue demonstrates that the issuance fell within the Circular's narrowly drawn exceptional circumstances; the Tribunal found such non-compliance in the order dated 15 October 2019 and the High Court affirmed, while the Supreme Court granted interim stay for further consideration.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Capitation fee allegations challenge admissibility and attribution of seized evidence in charitable trust tax exemption inquiries.
    Alleged collection of capitation fees by a registered charitable trust threatens its exemption under Section 11; most evidence was seized from employees' residences, invoking the presumption under Section 132(4A) and raising attribution issues. Employee admissions later retracted, similar statement drafting, declarations under the Income Declaration Scheme 2016, and trustees' acknowledgments create contradictory evidentiary threads that complicate admissibility, credibility, and whether the seized funds can be treated as trust income.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay in tax compliance: liberal interpretation protects bona fide taxpayers from technical disqualification.
    The court analysed whether delay in filing Form 10 could be condoned, considering the petitioner's unawareness of post 2016 amendments, CBDT circulars and precedent, and applying principles that each case be judged on its facts; it stressed that failure to claim accumulation does not by itself show absence of intent to comply and urged a liberal approach to mitigate genuine hardship and prevent procedural technicalities from defeating substantive justice.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Section 263 limited to substantial legal errors; mere differences of opinion don't justify revisional tax action.
    Scope of Section 263 is confined to instances where an assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to revenue in a substantial way, not mere differences of opinion. Migration of licences from IP VPN to NLD ILD does not, by itself, create a new undertaking defeating entitlement to deduction under Section 80IA(4)(ii), particularly where identical deductions were previously allowed; administrative migration requires clear proof of substantive change before re characterising eligibility.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Delay condonation based on sufficient cause upheld where illness, relocation and pandemic disruption justified late filing and jurisdictional challenge.
    The tribunal applied a purposive construction of sufficient cause to condone substantial delay where cumulative factors-serious illness, change of residence and pandemic disruption-made filing untimely. It also found the assessment infirm for want of territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction because the taxpayer had established residence and filing history in a different territorial unit and administrative guidance allocated jurisdiction accordingly, underscoring that proper vesting of authority is a condition precedent to valid assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Unexplained cash credits under Section 68 require taxpayers to prove investor identity and genuineness; authorities must rebut with evidence.
    Applicability of Section 68 requires the assessee to establish investor identity, creditworthiness and transaction genuineness-via PAN, tax returns, audited accounts and bank statements-and once this initial burden is satisfied, the burden shifts to the revenue to rebut with concrete evidence; mere suspicion or inability to trace an ultimate source does not alone justify additions if investments are reasonable relative to investors' net worth and effected through banking channels.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Retrospective cancellation of charitable trust registration invalidated due to lack of competent jurisdiction and procedural non compliance.
    The Tribunal invalidated the cancellation of a charitable trust's registration because the regional authority lacked competence to cancel under the statutory scheme and the transfer used to reassign the matter was improper; it further held that applying the newer cancellation provision retrospectively to deprive the trust of its recognized status was not legally tenable, emphasizing required notice, hearing and adherence to principled statutory interpretation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdiction in multi locational offences governs venue determination; magistrate discretion and supervisory thresholds shape tax prosecution forums under criminal procedure.
    The judgment analyses Cr.P.C. place of offence principles in multi locational tax prosecutions, assessing whether procedural acts like recording statements under the Income Tax Act determine venue. It evaluates the magistrate's discretion in taking cognizance where alleged offences span jurisdictions and outlines the threshold for superior court supervisory intervention, emphasising that extraordinary petitions require demonstration of abuse of process or exceptional circumstances before altering magistrate venue determinations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Taxation of unexplained income: higher-rate treatment applies, and deductions including partner salary are disallowed.
    The tribunal held that excess unrecorded stock and cash found on survey were assessable as unexplained investment and unexplained money, and that the special higher-rate taxation provision applies to such income, taxing it at a higher fixed rate and disallowing any deduction; consequently the claimed partner's salary relating to the unexplained investment was disallowed.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation under section 144C: assessment issued beyond statutory period, leaving transfer pricing adjustment unresolved on procedural grounds.
    The tribunal focused on the statutory time limit under Section 144C(13) for passing assessment orders after DRP directions, treated the order as barred by limitation and therefore did not adjudicate substantive transfer pricing challenges raised under Section 92CA. Consequently, technical disputes over comparability, exclusion/inclusion of comparables, and the profit level indicator computation were left unexamined.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Capitalization of interest: tribunal scrutinised whether interest and forex on capital projects form capital cost or permit revenue deduction.
    The tribunal analyzed four core taxation questions: whether interest and foreign exchange fluctuations written off from Capital Work in Progress are capital or revenue in nature and their nexus to business operations; whether write off of a DG set component should be treated within the block of assets for depreciation or as a revenue repair; the applicability of Section 36(1)(iii) to proportionate interest on interest free advances to related concerns and the presumption from mixed funds; and the evidentiary requirements to establish that inter corporate deposits were funded from own funds rather than borrowed monies for interest deduction purposes.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Doctrine of merger limits revisional jurisdiction under appeals, preventing collateral review of identical legal issues.
    The Doctrine of Merger operates to treat legal issues from an assessment as merged into appeal proceedings before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), thereby constraining subsequent revisional jurisdiction over those same issues; applied where initial assessment, reassessment notices and search-related assessment steps overlap, and supported by judicial precedent limiting collateral revision.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Interest on delayed tax refunds where delay is not attributable to the taxpayer under Section 244A.
    Entitlement to interest under Section 244A arises when refund payment is delayed for reasons not attributable to the assessee. The petitioner, a foreign company, faced delays caused by technical issues and incorrect guidance regarding banking details; the court treated the delay as the respondents' responsibility and applied Section 244A to award interest for the period of delay, directing payment according to the statutory rate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revision application under Section 264: remand for fresh merits review when alternative remedies were improperly relied upon.
    Whether a revision under Section 264 may be denied solely because alternative remedies existed and whether appeal provisions applied to DDT-related treaty claims; the court found that rejecting revision on the mere availability of other remedies was untenable and that the appealed provision was inapplicable, directing fresh merits consideration of treaty relief and related tax computation by the Principal Commissioner.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    DTAA interpretation clarifies capital gains tax treatment for cross-border share sales under residency and grandfathering conditions.
    Taxation of capital gains from a Mauritius-based entity's sale of Indian company shares is analysed against the India-Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, focusing on DTAA allocation of taxing rights, timing of acquisition and transfer, and applicability of grandfathering provisions. The Tribunal assessed tax residency and treaty entitlement by examining corporate structure and commercial substance, applying the substance over form principle to determine whether treaty benefits were appropriate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Fiduciary funds not treated as taxable income when entity acts as facilitator; earmarked project funds excluded from income.
    The Tribunal examined whether earmarked receipts should be included in taxable income or treated on the balance sheet, focusing on jurisdictional validity of scrutiny notices, whether amounts were routed through the income and expenditure account or retained as earmarked funds, and whether receipts held in a fiduciary capacity for disaster relief were excluded from the entity's income because the entity acted only as facilitator without beneficial ownership.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    ESOP deduction in revised returns - tribunal permits claim within revision window, stressing valuation, timing and documentary consistency.
    Deductibility of ESOP-related costs in a revised return hinges on compliance with the statutory time limit for revision and on accounting and evidentiary consistency: correct year of recognition, reliable grant date valuation (e.g., Black Scholes), concordant employee records, and disclosure in audited accounts. The tribunal found the claim allowable within the revision window but emphasised documentary proof, valuation method and timing of liability as central to acceptability.

    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