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 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