Loading...

⚠ ✕
❮ Top
☎ Help
☰
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback✕

Contact Us At :

✉ E-mail: [email protected]

✆ Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters 0/2000
Make Most of Text Search ✕
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
╳
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
✕
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
❮ Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Filters / Advanced Search ❯
TEXT

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In
Main Text + AI Text ❯
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
Law:
---- All Laws---- ❯
  • ---- All Laws----
  • Benami Property
  • Bill
  • Central Excise
  • Companies Law
  • Customs
  • DGFT
  • FEMA
  • GST
  • GST - States
  • IBC
  • Income Tax
  • Indian Laws
  • Money Laundering
  • SEBI
  • SEZ
  • Service Tax
  • VAT / Sales Tax
Types:
---- All Types ---- ❯
  • ---- All Types ----
  • Act Rules
  • Case Laws
  • Circulars
  • Manuals
  • News
  • Notifications
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
Relevance Default Date
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating Through Reimbursement Expenses, DDT Refunds, and Transfer Pricing Adjustments
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating Financial Distress: A Legal Analysis of Progressive Tax Instalment Judgments
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Deciphering Tax Implications on Capital Reduction: Navigating the Complexities of Section 115QA in I...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interpreting Section 153A: ITAT Delhi's Stand on Incriminating Material in Assessments: Assessments ...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reaffirming the Bounds of Section 153A: Analysis of Delhi High Court's Approach: Assessment post sea...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating Rectification and Revised Returns: Legal Insights from ITAT Bangalore's Ruling
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Mutual Fund Gains and Deemed Dividends: Analyzing the Delhi High Court's Landmark Judgment
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reassessing Income under Section 147 Post-Quashment of Sections 153A/153C: The Waiver of Limitation ...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Section 153A of the Income Tax Act: A Critical Analysis of the Supreme Court's Interpretation in the...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Clarity and Precision in Tax Penalty Proceedings: Insights from a High Court Judgment
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Jurisdictional Challenges in Tax Assessments: Insights from a Recent ITAT Decision
    Case Laws Income Tax
    High Court Rules on the Invalidity of Reassessment Notices Issued to a Deceased Person
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Long-Term Capital Gains and Unexplained Cash Credits in Stock Transactions: A Legal Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Judicial Approach in Transfer Pricing and PE Attribution: Analysis of a Landmark Case: Legal Perspec...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Scrutinizing the Application of Mind in Tax Assessments: Examining the Role of ACIT while granting a...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    TDS Obligations and DTAA: Clarifying Tax Jurisdiction in International Telecom Services
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Distinction Between Business Income and Deemed Income in Income Tax Assessments: Higher rate of tax ...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Analysis of ITAT's Decision on Surplus Stock Taxation
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Validity of Notices / orders without DIN. The Critical Role of Procedural Compliance in Tax Administ...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Tax Exemptions: Capitation Fees in Educational Institutions: A Legal Quagmire
❮
❯
❯❯
Maximize Maximize Maximize
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder

No Folders have been created

+

Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

NOTE:

Notes
Showing Results for :
Reset Filters
Results Found:
Show All Summaries Hide All Summaries
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Transfer pricing adjustments shape ALP analysis and documentation requirements for royalties and management fees.
Dispute involves deductibility of cross border reimbursement payments under Section 37 and whether assessing authorities recorded specific factual findings and afforded fair opportunity before disallowance. Related issues include entitlement to refund of excess Dividend Distribution Tax under the DTAA and the correct application of the Arm's Length Principle-notably choice between TNMM and CUP-for benchmarking royalty and management fees, with emphasis on documentation and comparability analysis.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Instalment payments: courts permit flexible tax instalment schedules for financially distressed corporates while respecting lower court discretion.
The courts endorsed a flexible instalment framework permitting extension and adjustment of tax payment schedules when a corporate taxpayer demonstrates reduced capacity to pay, including temporary reduction of individual instalments with deficits spread over remaining payments. The appellate decision upheld the lower court's discretion, emphasising deference absent clear error and supporting reasonableness and proportionality in accommodating financial distress while preserving eventual recovery of assessed liabilities.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Capital reduction transactions treated outside buyback levy when executed pre amendment; buyback tax not attracted.
The Tribunal held that the capital reduction did not qualify as a buyback for purposes of the buyback tax provision because the transaction was completed before the amendment that broadened the provision's definition; relying on precedents distinguishing capital reduction from buybacks, the Tribunal rejected the revenue's tax avoidance contention and emphasised that the transaction date governs applicability of the amended definition.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Incriminating material requirement: Section 153A assessments require material specific to the assessee, not unrelated third party statements.
Assessments following search operations must be grounded on incriminating material specifically linked to the assessee; material or statements derived from separate or third party search proceedings cannot, alone, serve as incriminating material against an unrelated assessee. Absent assesseespecific incriminating material, additions and disallowances in such assessments lack justification and cannot properly form the basis of adverse tax adjustments.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Admissibility of search statements: corroborative evidence required before additions in post-search tax assessments.
Statements recorded under Section 132(4) have evidentiary value but cannot alone justify additions under Section 153A; corroborative material discovered during the search is required, and taxpayers must be afforded the opportunity to cross-examine and rebut adverse statements before assessments under Section 153A are finalized.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Rectification under Section 154: procedural lapses should not bar correction of apparent errors in tax returns.
Interpretation of Section 154 treats misplacement of figures in an original return as a mistake apparent from the record, qualifying for statutory rectification; a revised return filed as a genuine corrective attempt may be recognised despite procedural lapses, and tax authorities should balance procedural compliance with the need to remedy apparent errors and assist taxpayers in claiming corrections.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Classification of Mutual Fund Gains: affirmed as capital gains, clarifies tests distinguishing business income and scope of deemed dividends.
Classification of gains from mutual fund redemptions turns on intent, transaction frequency, holding period, accounting treatment and the factual matrix to determine capital gains versus business income. Distinguishing genuine capital contributions from transactions that function as distributions is essential before treating receipts as deemed dividends; absent characteristics of a loan or advance against profits, capital infusions should not be recharacterised as dividends.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Reopening assessments under Section 147 requires proper review when Section 150(2) waiver is contested, not clarification.
Reopening of assessments under Section 147 concerns whether the Assessing Officer has a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment and is subject to procedural safeguards including issuance of a statutory notice. Where prior assessments made in consequence of a search under provisions for search-based assessment were quashed, the question arises whether fresh proceedings may be initiated for income not arising from incriminating material found in the search and whether the limitation period can be waived under Section 150(2) to permit issuance of a notice for reassessment.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Scope of assessment post-search: completed assessments permit additions only from incriminating material found during searches.
The Supreme Court clarified that for assessments completed before a search, the Assessing Officer's power to reassess within the retrospective period is constrained: any additions in such completed assessments must be based on incriminating material discovered during the search, thereby limiting use of search powers to matters tied to the unearthed evidence and preventing expansion of assessments on unrelated material.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Specificity in penalty notices: requirement to identify exact charge prevents defective proceedings and safeguards procedural fairness.
Applicability of penalty for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars requires the assessing officer to specify the exact limb under which proceedings are initiated; absence of that specificity renders the penalty notice defective, undermines procedural fairness, and justifies setting aside the penalty, thereby obliging tax authorities to adhere to precise notice requirements when invoking penal provisions.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Jurisdictional validity of tax notice: lack of proper jurisdiction can vitiate assessment proceedings and nullify further action.
The dominant operative point is that a valid scrutiny assessment under Section 143(2) requires issuance by an officer with lawful jurisdiction determined by income thresholds and administrative instructions; failure in jurisdictional competence can render the notice and ensuing assessment proceedings invalid. Procedural fairness-specifically the opportunity to be heard-is a corollary concern, and while issues regarding additions under Section 69A and the tax effect of Section 115BBE are raised, they become academic if the initiation itself is found jurisdictionally flawed.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Validity of reassessment notices: notices issued to a deceased person are void and must be directed to the correct legal entity.
The High Court held that reassessment notices issued in the name of a deceased assessee are null and void, constituting substantive illegality when directed to a non-existent person; the court emphasized that the correct legal entity must be addressed, that the legal heir's communications and filings were material, and that procedural protections and statutory reopening procedures cannot be bypassed due to administrative or IT constraints.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Long-term capital gains preserved where transaction records establish genuineness; mere broker misconduct is insufficient evidence.
The issue is whether gains from sale of low-priced shares are long-term capital gains or unexplained cash credits under Section 68. The authorities suspected accommodation entries via a broker with a tainted history, but transaction documents-bills, bank payments and contract notes-were held to establish genuineness. Mere suspicion of broker misconduct was deemed insufficient without direct evidence linking the assessee to contrived entries; evidentiary standards and fair hearing obligations were decisive.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Permanent establishment attribution: precedent-driven analysis limits taxable profit allocation to where core value is created in digital services.
The principal issue is attribution of profits to a Permanent Establishment for cross-border digital reservation services, requiring a fact-sensitive analysis of where core business activities and value creation occur; judicial reasoning relied on materially similar precedent to determine the appropriate share of revenue attributable to the PE, stressing that a mere business connection or digital presence does not automatically justify full profit allocation to the jurisdiction and that clear tracing of value creation is essential to avoid double taxation.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Application of mind in tax approvals: inadequate ACIT scrutiny under Section 153D can invalidate assessments.
The core issue is whether the ACIT, when granting approval under Section 153D, performed a genuine application of mind by scrutinising assessment records and search material; the Tribunal and High Court found the approval lacked adequate examination, leading to inconsistencies between additions made by the assessing officer and the assessed income, and rendering the assessment unreliable. The matter was treated as factual rather than presenting a substantial question of law.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Royalty characterisation: cross-border telecom payments not taxable as royalty, limiting TDS and extraterritorial jurisdiction.
Payments by an Indian telecom operator to non-resident carriers for interconnectivity and capacity transfers are not to be characterised as royalty under the applicable DTAA and therefore do not attract TDS; DTAA interpretation governs characterization, Indian jurisdiction is limited over extra territorial income where the foreign entities lack a taxable presence, and retrospective amendments do not impose tax on past transactions compliant with the law at the time.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Deemed income classification denied where surrendered receipts are linked to business activities, avoiding higher tax rate.
Where surrendered cash, advances and stock discrepancies identified in a survey are linked to ordinary business activities and the assessee supplies specific explanations of source and nexus, the deeming provisions for unexplained investments and unrecorded ownership do not automatically apply; accordingly the higher-rate taxation applicable to incomes classified as deemed income is inapplicable and the amounts are treated as business income for tax purposes.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Surplus stock classification: accounting linkage to business determines treatment as business income over unexplained investment.
Classification of surplus stock found during a section 133A survey depends on its nexus with ordinary trading and documentary accounting. Where excess inventory is recorded in the stock register and credited to partners' capital account, these accounting entries indicate it forms part of regular business stock and support treatment as business income rather than unexplained investment under section 69B, affecting applicability of special tax treatment under section 115BBE.
Case Laws Income 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 Laws Income 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.

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

Showing Results for :
Reset Filters
No Records Found

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

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

Acts Income Tax