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
    Retrospective Cancellation of GST Registration: Analysis of Delhi High Court’s Ruling in 2024 (1) ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Deciphering Tax Implications on Capital Reduction: Navigating the Complexities of Section 115QA in I...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Navigating Regulatory Compliance: Analysis of a CHA License Revocation and Restoration Case
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting Section 153A: ITAT Delhi's Stand on Incriminating Material in Assessments: Assessments ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reaffirming the Bounds of Section 153A: Analysis of Delhi High Court's Approach: Assessment post sea...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating Rectification and Revised Returns: Legal Insights from ITAT Bangalore's Ruling
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Mutual Fund Gains and Deemed Dividends: Analyzing the Delhi High Court's Landmark Judgment
    Case LawsCustoms
    Judicial Scrutiny of Customs Seizure and Redemption under the Indian Legal Framework: Foreign Curren...
    Case LawsCustoms
    The Duty of Diligence: Understanding the Legal Implications for Customs Brokers
    Case LawsCustoms
    Legal Analysis of a Customs Appeal Case Involving Mandatory Pre-Deposit Requirements
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Legal Elucidation of Homeopathic Product Classification under Central Excise Tariff Act: Medicament ...
    The Supreme Court's In-Depth Ruling on Corporate Insolvency: Legal Implications Explored
    Money Laundering and Bail: Supreme Court's Interpretation of Section 45 PMLA
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessing Income under Section 147 Post-Quashment of Sections 153A/153C: The Waiver of Limitation ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 153A of the Income Tax Act: A Critical Analysis of the Supreme Court's Interpretation in the...
    The Intersection of Politics, Corruption, and Judicial Review: A Case Study: Validity of order of Hi...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Clarity and Precision in Tax Penalty Proceedings: Insights from a High Court Judgment
    NCLAT's Authority to Recall Judgments: The Intersection of Tribunal Authority and Justice
    Detention and Release of Goods under CGST Act: Discrepancies in the CGST registration of the consign...
    The Detention of Goods under GST Law: Doubts regarding the genuineness of the consignee
❯❯
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
    Retrospective GST cancellation: court limits retroactive effect, stressing objective grounds and hearing rights for taxpayers.
    The court held that retrospective cancellation of GST registration cannot be applied mechanically and must be supported by objective grounds; mere non-filing does not automatically justify cancelling registration for earlier compliant periods. Procedural fairness requires an opportunity of being heard before imposing retrospective cancellation, and the temporal effect of cancellation should align with the taxpayer's cancellation application rather than an earlier retrospective date, given potential impacts such as denial of input tax credit.
    Case LawsIncome 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 LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Non transferability of CHA license: unauthorized sub letting triggered revocation, later reconsidered due to appellant hardship.
    A licensed CHA was found to have contravened CHALR by effectively transferring operational control to a Mumbai office through a Power of Attorney, breaching non transferability, CHA obligations to obtain authorisations and exercise due diligence, and supervision duties over employees; the firm was held accountable where the licence was used for financial gain.
    Case LawsIncome 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 LawsIncome 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 LawsIncome 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 LawsIncome 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 LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Redemption under Customs Act: deemed payment recognized as exercising the redemption option despite pandemic-related delay.
    The judgment analyzes the redemption option under the Customs Act allowing fine payment in lieu of confiscation, focusing on the prescribed timeframe and on how actions by a petitioner while seized currency remains with the department can constitute exercise of that option. Considering pandemic-related disruption, the court applied purposive interpretation and concluded the department's refusal to accept a deemed payment was unjustified and that the petitioner's steps effectively availed the statutory redemption alternative.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Duty to exercise due diligence: strict licensing compliance can justify administrative revocation and security forfeiture for brokers.
    The headnote focuses on the duty of diligence under the CBLR 2018, identifying failures to advise clients, to verify information, and to supervise employees as breaches that can attract administrative penalties against a customs broker's licence. It also confirms that regulatory action may be initiated at the broker's registered location regardless of where the underlying transactions occurred, and highlights the need for compliance programs, client advisory practices, and employee training.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Mandatory pre-deposit requirement: payments made during investigation can be counted toward the appeal pre-deposit, protecting access to appeal.
    Interpretation of the pre-deposit requirement focuses on counting payments made during investigation toward the mandatory deposit for appellate admissibility; authorities must account for investigation-stage deposits when assessing compliance to avoid denying appeal rights on technical grounds and to give effect to substantive payment.
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Show AI Summary
    Medicament classification confirmed for a homeopathic hair oil based on ingredients and ordinary perception under tariff law.
    Classification of a homeopathic hair oil as a medicament depends on the ingredients test and the common parlance test. The Tribunal treated AHAHO as a medicament because it contained recognised homeopathic constituents and was labelled under the homeopathic schedule; the Supreme Court affirmed that those medicinal ingredients and the product's perception as a homeopathic medicine outweigh cosmetic imagery and over the counter availability, and that tariff amendments did not change the classificatory result.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Resolution applicant eligibility under insolvency law can be disqualified by trust and company conflicts affecting CIRP participation.
    The judgment finds that valuation disclosures and newspaper publication of Form G met CIRP regulatory requirements despite website upload issues; materially revised resolution plans must be placed before the Committee of Creditors or are procedurally irregular; commercial wisdom of the CoC governs differential treatment of creditors subject to legal compliance; promoter settlement offers and Section 12-A applications require demonstrable CoC consideration; and resolution applicant eligibility is governed by Trusts Act and Companies Act conflicts, not by assumed disqualifications absent specific disqualification orders.
    Case LawsPMLA
    Show AI Summary
    Section 45 PMLA bail standard: stringent satisfaction required on non guilt and low risk of reoffence before granting bail.
    Interpretation of Section 45 PMLA requires a stringent bail standard: courts must be satisfied on reasonable grounds that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit an offence while on bail. An Enforcement Directorate investigation under the PMLA is distinct from predicate offence inquiries, so completion of predicate investigations does not substitute for the specific assessment required under the PMLA; courts must therefore evaluate the seriousness of allegations and the stage and character of the ED probe when considering bail.
    Case LawsIncome 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 LawsIncome 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 LawsPMLA
    Show AI Summary
    Judicial oversight of criminal investigations must be cautious to avoid unwarranted de novo probes that disrupt investigative progress.
    The commentary critiques a High Court-ordered de novo investigation into recruitment corruption, treating such measures as extraordinary remedies that should not unsettle substantial prior investigative work. It stresses judicial discipline and adherence to precedent, warns against collusion and political interference in inquiries, recognises expanded locus standi for third parties in complex cases, affirms confidentiality of confession material with limited exceptions, and outlines the Enforcement Directorate's powers in probing and recovering proceeds of money laundering.
    Case LawsIncome 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 LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Inherent jurisdiction to recall judgments affirms tribunals can correct proceedings tainted by procedural vitiation or jurisdictional defect.
    The tribunal recognised its inherent jurisdiction to recall judgments distinct from review, holding that recall is available where procedural vitiation, fraud, lack of jurisdiction or failure of natural justice renders a proceeding a nullity. Drawing on the tribunal rules analogue to residual civil-procedure power and higher-court authority, the tribunal treated recall as an incidental order to prevent abuse of process and to correct proceedings affected by jurisdictional defect or gross procedural lapse.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Detention and release under Section 129: proper tax invoice and e way bill establish owner status and permit release.
    Where goods intercepted in transit show a proper tax invoice and a valid e way bill identifying the consignor/consignee, those documents establish ownership for purposes of Section 129 and direct application of the release provision applicable when the owner comes forward; documentary compliance thus determines which release regime applies where GST registration discrepancies are alleged.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Detention of goods under GST: enforcement must assess consignee genuineness and documentary compliance before imposing penalties.
    Detention of goods in transit was contested where authorities suspected the consignee's genuineness despite production of a tax invoice and an E way bill; the Court directed that enforcement action distinguish between penalty provisions and alternative statutory mechanisms, require strict procedural fairness, assess documentary evidence and consignee identity, and remit the matter for fresh administrative consideration accordingly.

    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