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 143 "Special provisions in respect of certain undertakings in North-Eastern States." between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

      3 September, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Section 143 Special provisions in respect of certain undertakings in North-Eastern States.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      This document is the Bill version titled "Clause 143" within the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (old version). It provides special tax relief for specified undertakings in North-Eastern States by allowing a 100% deduction of profits and gains from eligible businesses for ten consecutive tax years starting from the initial tax year. It matters to taxpayers operating eligible businesses/units in the specified North-Eastern States and to the tax administration. Effective date or enactment date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: Clause 143 (Bill) proposes a special deduction in respect of profits and gains of certain undertakings in the North-Eastern States. The provision references other statutory provisions - notably section 140(4), (5) and (6) (for re-establishment/reconstruction) and the second proviso to section 80-IB(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - for interaction and limiting rules. Coverage: manufacturing/production of "eligible article or thing", substantial expansion of such manufacture/production, and carrying on specified "eligible business". Definitions provided in the clause include "eligible article or thing", "eligible business", "initial tax year", "North-Eastern States" (list of eight states), and "substantial expansion". The clause sets eligibility conditions and prescribes exclusivity of this deduction vis-`a-vis other Chapter deductions.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      The clause allows, where gross total income includes profits and gains from a qualifying undertaking carrying on an eligible activity, a deduction equal to 100% of such profits and gains for ten consecutive tax years commencing with the "initial tax year". The clause applies only to undertakings which have, during the period beginning 1 April 2007 and ending with 1 April 2017, begun or begin in any of the specified North-Eastern States to-(a) manufacture/produce an eligible article/thing; (b) undertake substantial expansion to manufacture/produce an eligible article/thing; and (c) carry on an eligible business. The clause imposes pre-conditions on formation: the undertaking must not be formed by splitting up or reconstruction of an existing business; it must not be formed by transfer to a new business of previously used plant/machinery; an express exception to the first condition exists for re-establishment/reconstruction/revival in the circumstances set out in section 140(4).

      Interpretation

      The clause achieves its purpose by setting an unconditional quantitative benefit (100% deduction) subject to temporal, geographic and formation criteria. The text indicates legislative intent to incentivise industrial and service activity in the North-Eastern States for undertakings started in a discrete historical window (2007-2017). The reference to section 140(4) suggests Parliament intended to align the relief with pre-existing rules governing re-established undertakings, preventing arbitrary exclusion. The exclusivity clause (no deduction under any other section of this Chapter in relation to the profits and gains) evinces an intent to avoid double counting of deductions within the same Chapter.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Carve-outs and conditions in the clause include:

      • Ineligibility where formation is by splitting up or reconstruction of an existing business (subject to the section 140(4) exception).
      • Ineligibility if formed by transferring previously used plant/machinery to new business (with application of section 140(5) and (6)).
      • Exclusion of certain articles: tobacco and manufactured tobacco substitutes (Ch. 24), pan masala (Ch. 21), plastic carry bags under 20 microns (Ministry of Environment notifications cited), and petroleum products (Ch. 27) produced by refineries.
      • Eligible businesses list excludes lower-tier hotels (below two-star), sets capacity thresholds (nursing homes >=25 beds), and prescribes scope for training institutes and IT hardware manufacturing among other items.
      • Aggregate limit: no deduction under this clause or under the second proviso to section 80-IB(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 shall together exceed ten tax years.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A new two-star hotel in Assam commencing operations in the initial tax year within the specified period would, subject to meeting formation and other conditions, be entitled to claim a 100% deduction of profits for ten consecutive tax years starting that initial tax year. (Facts such as dates or compliance procedures: Not stated in the document.)
      • Example 2: An information-technology hardware manufacturer in Manipur that undertakes a "substantial expansion" (as defined: >=25% increase in plant & machinery book value measured on the first day of that tax year) within the qualifying period would begin the ten-year deduction period from the "initial tax year" defined as the tax year in which substantial expansion is completed.

      Interplay

      The clause expressly invokes sections 140(4)-(6) for treatment of certain formational exceptions and re-established entities, and it cross-refers to the second proviso to section 80-IB(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for aggregate duration limits. No other Rules/Notifications/Circulars are cited in the clause text. Potential interpretive issues (from the text): the precise effect of the cross-reference to section 140 provisions and operationalising the ten consecutive years where an undertaking previously claimed another relief are to be determined by reference to those provisions; the clause itself does not provide procedural rules for claiming the deduction. (Any administrative procedure or forms: Not stated in the document.)

      Differences between the two provisions and practical impact

      • Source/status: Document 1 is presented as "Section 143 of Income-tax Act, 2025" (enacted provision); Document 2 is labelled "Clause 143 of Income Tax Bill, 2025 - Old Version" (bill text).
        • Practical impact: One is framed as enacted legislation, the other as an earlier bill text; enacted text is authoritative. (This observation is drawn from the document headings.)
      • Temporal phrase regarding the terminal date of the eligible period: Document 1 (Act) states the period as "beginning on the 1st April, 2007 and ending before the 1st April, 2017"; Document 2 (Bill) states "beginning on the 1st April, 2007 and ending with the 1st April, 2017."
        • Practical impact: The Act's "ending before" excludes 1 April 2017 as a qualifying date for undertakings that begin on that day; the Bill's "ending with" would include that day. This difference affects the eligibility of undertakings that commenced on 1 April 2017.
      • Condition/exception structure for re-established/reconstructed undertakings: Document 2 separates an explicit clause (3)(c) stating that condition (a) shall not apply to undertakings formed by re-establishment/reconstruction/revival as referred in section 140(4); Document 1 integrates that exception by parenthetical qualification in clause (3)(a) (mirroring section 140(4) language).
        • Practical impact: Substantively similar, but drafting differs-Document 2 expresses the exception as a standalone clause, which may be clearer in the bill form; the Act embeds the exception within clause (3)(a). No clear substantive divergence in eligibility is evident from the texts themselves.
      • Typographical/wording differences: Document 2 contains a typographical truncation ("bio-technolog;") and slightly different punctuation/word order in certain subsections (e.g., placement of commas and "and").
        • Practical impact: Primarily drafting/typographical; the Act text corrects such errors. Absent substantive amendments, these do not alter legal effect other than clarity.
      • Other differences: Document 1 explicitly states "Irrespective of anything contained in this Act" in subsection (6) and adds minor variations in sub-section labeling (e.g., Document 1 uses "(8) For the purposes of this section,-" then lists definitions).
        • Practical impact: Largely stylistic drafting; material coverage of deductions, duration (ten tax years), ineligibility for other chapter deductions, and the list of eligible businesses/articles remain consistent across both texts.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Taxpayers must ensure strict compliance with formation criteria (no splitting/reconstruction except as allowed u/s 140(4)), substantiate that plant and machinery are new (or otherwise satisfy section 140(5)/(6) requirements) and document the date of commencement or completion of substantial expansion to establish the "initial tax year". Absent such documentation, entitlement could be contested by the tax authorities. The clause itself does not state procedural safeguards or evidence standards. (Not stated in the document.)
      • Record-keeping/evidence points: Maintain contemporaneous records evidencing commencement dates, investment in plant & machinery (book values), particulars of any reconstruction or re-establishment, and capacity thresholds (e.g., nursing home bed count). Preserve invoices and fixed asset registers to evidence the 25% increase for "substantial expansion". The clause does not set evidentiary standards or audit procedures. (Not stated in the document.)

      Key Takeaways

      • The provision grants a 100% deduction of profits and gains from eligible activities in North-Eastern States for ten consecutive tax years starting from the "initial tax year".
      • Eligibility is confined to undertakings begun (or substantially expanded) within a discrete window (1 April 2007 to 1 April 2017 as per the Bill text) - timing is determinative; any variance in the terminal date materially affects eligibility for undertakings commencing on 1 April 2017.
      • Formation conditions bar benefits to undertakings formed by splitting/reconstruction or by transfer of used plant/machinery, subject to exceptions aligning with section 140 provisions.
      • Certain goods (tobacco, pan masala, specified plastic bags, refinery products) are excluded; the clause specifies a closed list of eligible businesses with capacity/quality thresholds.
      • The deduction is exclusive: no other deduction under the same Chapter can be claimed in relation to the same profits and gains; aggregate relief periods (this clause + section 80-IB(4) second proviso) cannot exceed ten tax years.
      • The Bill text contains minor drafting defects (e.g., "bio-technolog;") and differs from the Act text in a temporal phrase ("ending with" vs "ending before") and in clause structuring; such differences can have concrete eligibility consequences.
      • Procedural, evidentiary and effective date details are not provided in the Bill text. (Not stated in the document.)

      Full Text:

      Section 143 Special provisions in respect of certain undertakings in North-Eastern States.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax