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
    Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS to the Government
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    A Landmark Judgment on Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS ...
    A Case of Coerced Input Tax Credit Reversal - GST recovery during search and seizure proceedings.
    Manner of compliance of conditions of pre-deposit - Debit of amount from electronic credit ledger (E...
    The need for clarity and concrete reasons in the cancellation of GST registrations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of reopening of assessment - need for a direct link between the portal's information and th...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Application of provisions of section 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional release of imported goods (apples) - The dispute centers on the valuation of the import...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Applicability of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of expenses - need for tax authorities to have a practical understanding of the nature ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of the assessee's business expenditure claims related to the purchase of sugarcane from...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Additions made u/s 69 and Section 56 in the absence of direct incriminating evidence linking the ass...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Whether penalty is to be imposed when the appellant has accepted the classification and paid the ent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Liability for payment of customs duty on sale of excess liquor from the duty-free shop
    Case LawsCustoms
    Demand of customs duty beyond normal period of limitation on the ground of change in classification ...
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Stringent approach towards ensuring compliance with auditing standards - importance of auditors' res...
    Whether the appellant's claim can be classified as a Financial Debt or Operational Debt under the In...
    Scope of Approval of resolution plan - Allegations of undervaluation of the Corporate Debtor's asset...
    Denial of Input Tax Credit since the GST registration of the Supplier of Goods has been Cancelled wi...
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) is a vested right or concession - Can government impose conditions or restric...
❯❯
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
    TDS credit entitlement affirmed: deductee entitled to credit despite deductor's non-deposit, preventing indirect recovery.
    Credit for tax deducted at source on interest payments is to be treated as tax paid on the deductee's behalf and does not depend on the deductor's remittance; statutory protections against indirect recovery prevent the revenue from seeking the same tax from the deductee when the deductor fails to deposit the deducted amount, and the deposit requirement in the applicable provisions does not negate the deductee's entitlement to such credit.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tax credit for TDS: deductee entitled to credit even if deductor failed to deposit the retained tax with government.
    The Court treats amounts retained by a deductor as remaining tax and concludes the statutory credit mechanism for tax deducted at source does not condition a deductee's entitlement on the deductor having deposited the retained amount with the government, thereby barring indirect recovery or adjustment against the deductee where tax has been deducted at source.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Coercive tax collection prohibited; forced reversal of input tax credit during search deemed impermissible, with investigatory remedies preserved.
    Dispute involved a search under Section 67 and an alleged coerced reversal of Input Tax Credit from the petitioner's Electronic Credit Ledger for supplies from a supplier with retrospectively cancelled registration; the court found such coercive recovery during search impermissible and directed restoration of the ITC while preserving the department's power to investigate and, if ineligible or fraudulent ITC is found, pass appropriate protective orders.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Pre-deposit payment method: Electronic credit ledger debit does not satisfy pre-deposit; cash ledger payment required for appeals.
    Pre-deposit for appeals under the CGST/BGST regime must be paid from the cash ledger; debit from the electronic credit ledger does not satisfy the statutory pre-deposit requirement. A revenue circular restricting ECRL use to certain output tax payments and excluding reverse charge, interest, penalties, fees, and similar amounts supports that ECRL cannot be used for pre-deposit. The court emphasized the statutory payment scheme and strict appeal filing timelines, rejecting arguments that ECRL debit could substitute for cash ledger payment.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Requirement of clear reasons in GST cancellation: retrospective deregistration must be reasoned and consider input tax credit effects.
    Cancellation of GST registration must be supported by clear reasons and concrete factual findings in show cause notices and cancellation orders; labels that a registration is "liable to be cancelled" without specifying dues or factual basis constitute mechanical action. Retrospective cancellation cannot be applied routinely; authorities must follow statutory procedure, assess causes for non-filing, consider exceptional disruptions to business operations, and account for the impact on input tax credit before fixing an effective date of cancellation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Use of portal data: digital information needs a direct evidential link before reopening income tax assessments.
    Reopening assessments requires a direct evidential link between portal-derived information and the income alleged to have escaped assessment; portal data alone is insufficient without documentary support for transactions or gifts, and a show cause notice must provide adequate particulars and reflect proper consideration of the taxpayer's response before reassessment proceeds.
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Show AI Summary
    Non retrospective application of punitive benami provisions affirmed, limiting enforcement to post amendment transactions.
    Application of Section 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 concerns whether punitive provisions enacted in 2016 apply to transactions predating the amendment. The Appellate Tribunal relied on Supreme Court precedent that such punitive provisions must be applied prospectively, and the High Court emphasized adherence to that interpretation while allowing parties to pursue further remedies pending the Supreme Court review.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional release of perishable imports allowed pending valuation, subject to provisional assessment and bond to protect revenue interests.
    The dispute concerns provisional release of perishable imported apples amid a valuation contest tied to a stayed minimum import price notification. The instrument requires provisional assessment of the Bill of Entry within a brief timeframe and permits conditional provisional release upon the importer furnishing a bond and meeting terms set by customs, thereby reconciling the protection of revenue interests with the practical need to avoid loss to perishable consignments pending final resolution of the notification's applicability.
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Show AI Summary
    Prospective application of punitive benami amendment upheld, limiting reach to post-enactment transactions and preserving pre-enactment protections.
    The Madras High Court affirmed that the enhanced punitive provision introduced by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 is substantive and applies prospectively; it endorsed the Tribunal's reliance on the Supreme Court's Ganapati Dealcom decision, treated a pending Supreme Court review petition as not displacing that precedent, and disposed of the appeals while allowing further proceedings consistent with prospectivity and prior constitutional findings.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Disallowance of expenses must rest on specific documentation defects, not on blanket percentage adjustments.
    Disallowance of business expenses on a summary or estimate basis requires specific, pointed deficiencies and cannot rest on generalized conclusions about excessiveness; in businesses with routine small transactions, tax authorities must examine the nature of operations and identify particular defects in documentation before applying blanket percentage disallowances.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Statutory Minimum Price interpretation: excess cane payments treated as appropriation of profits, not deductible business expense.
    The core issue is whether payments for sugarcane in excess of the Statutory Minimum Price (SMP) are deductible business expenditures or constitute an appropriation of profits. The Assessing Officer relied on standard accounting practice requiring provisions for liabilities at year end and treated post closing excess payments as distributions of operational surplus. The appellate view upheld that cooperative status does not alter the tax analysis and that payments beyond the SMP do not qualify as allowable business expenses absent proper provisioning within the accounting period.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Direct incriminating evidence requirement: third party search materials alone cannot sustain unexplained investment additions.
    Additions alleged as unexplained investments and undisclosed interest income based on third party search materials require a demonstrable direct nexus between those seized records and the assessee; absent such direct incriminating evidence, reliance on third party statements or documents is insufficient. Procedural safeguards and transactional indicia-such as cross examination opportunities, banking records, documentary support, and TDS-reduce the probative value of seized material when direct linkage is lacking.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty under Section 114A: no justification where importer accepted correct classification and paid differential duty before notice.
    Issue: imposition of a penalty for alleged suppression when the importer accepted correct tariff classification and paid the differential duty with interest before issuance of a show cause notice. The importer attributed the earlier misclassification to an agent error and denied intent to evade duty. The authority observed the accurate product description, admission of correct classification and prompt payment, concluded absence of suppression of facts and determined that the statutory penalty provision was not justified on these facts.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Liability under Section 72: duty rests with duty-free shop licence-holder when trade facility conditions are breached.
    Duty arises where a duty-free shop licence-holder breaches voucher and recordkeeping conditions under the trade facility; the licence-holder bears responsibility for payment of duty and interest when procedural requirements are violated, while penalty depends on culpability and may be disallowed where no intent to evade duty is established and customs were aware of the transactions.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Extended limitation in customs demands inapplicable where no suppression, limiting reassessment for CVD on undeclared MRP entries.
    Reassessment and CVD demand arose from a post-clearance change in classification and retrospective reliance on MRP for past entries; the tribunal held that items described were essential refrigeration parts rather than accessories, that MRP-based reassessment requires clear factual basis, and that the Extended Period of Limitation is inapplicable where no suppression is established, although penalty issues may still be considered where omissions occur.
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Auditor responsibility reinforced: regulatory findings against audit failures stress strict adherence to auditing standards and sanctions.
    NFRA found a statutory auditor guilty of professional misconduct for failures to comply with Standards on Auditing, including inadequate procedures to verify revenue, lack of physical inventory verification, insufficient going concern assessment, deficient materiality application, and inadequate communication with Those Charged with Governance, and applied regulatory sanctions to reinforce auditor responsibilities in preserving financial reporting integrity.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Operational debt classification confirmed for supplier's claim based on the transaction's nature under the insolvency framework.
    Whether a claim from a supply arrangement is a Financial Debt or an Operational Debt depends on the transaction's substantive character. The tribunal examined contractual terms-penalties for non-delivery, interest, and security cheques-and applied precedents on the financial-versus-operational distinction. It characterised the supplier's claim, filed under Section 9, as arising from the supply of goods and therefore as an operational debt, sustaining the Resolution Professional's and Adjudicating Authority's classification.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Commercial wisdom of committee of creditors governs resolution plan approval, limiting valuation and standing challenges by promoters.
    Exclusion of the creditor was non irregular as no claim was filed; undervaluation allegations were rejected since opportunities to raise them during the CIRP were not used; the resolution plan satisfied Committee approval requirements and reflected the Committee's commercial wisdom; and a suspended director/promoter lacked standing to challenge the approved plan, underscoring limited judicial interference post approval.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input tax credit denial over supplier deregistration; remanded for document verification and fresh adjudication to determine genuineness.
    Denial of Input Tax Credit was challenged where the supplier's registration was retrospectively cancelled; the petitioner paid through bank and the supplier appeared on records at the time. The High Court remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, directing the appellate authority to reconsider the petitioner's documentary evidence, hold a hearing, and pass a reasoned order verifying genuineness and timing of transactions; if purchases are genuine and occurred prior to cancellation, ITC is to be considered per precedent.
    Act RulesGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit as legislative concession: entitlement subject to statutory conditions, but retrospective deprivation of vested accruals is vulnerable.
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) is a legislative concession, not a vested right, so the legislature may lawfully prescribe eligibility conditions and procedural limits which taxpayers must strictly satisfy; however, retrospective amendments that destroy or diminish an already accrued entitlement are susceptible to challenge and have been treated as impermissible when they impair rights that vested before the amendment.

    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