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
    Retrospective Amendments and the Doctrine of Vested Rights: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Upholding Equality: HC Strikes Down Discriminatory Circular on Charitable Trust Approvals
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Judicial Review of Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) Orders: Navigating the Boundaries
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Assessee's Lackadaisical Conduct Leads to Dismissal of Income Tax Appeal
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Appeal Scheme: Lessons from the Judgement on Delayed Filing and Deduction u/...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Unraveling the Maze of Round-Tripping: The Doctrine of "Source of Source" in Share Capital Transacti...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Upholding the Transfer of Assessment Proceedings u/s 127: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Share Premium Addition u/s 68: Demystifying Share Premium Transactions
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Intricacies of Income Tax Penalty u/s 271(1)(c): Fairness in Tax Administration
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Scope and Limitations under Income Tax Act
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of Search and Seizure Assessments: Unraveling the Intricacies of Section...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interpreting Section 80G Provisions: ITAT's Stance on Charitable Institution Registration
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interpreting the Scope and Limits of Sections 153A and 153C: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Section 153C and the Necessity of AO's Satisfaction: A Detailed Judicial Analysis
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Royalty or Business Income? High Court Clarifies Taxation of Remittances against Software Purchase
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Complexities
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Faceless Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment: Validity of Notice Issued by the Jurisdictional A...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Court Upholds Deduction for Operational Hotel under Section 35AD Despite Administrative Delays
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Landmark Ruling: Leasing Businesses Entitled to Depreciation Benefits
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Court Decision on Convertible Debentures Expenses : Revenue or Capital Expenditure?
❮
❯
❯❯
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
Vested rights preserved against retrospective tax amendments; filings made before enactment remain effective for settlement consideration.
The court addressed whether a retrospective Finance Act amendment prohibiting settlement applications from a specified date could divest a taxpayer who filed earlier of its vested right to have the application considered. It held that retrospective legislation cannot take away rights already accrued by actions completed before enactment unless clearly intended; that section 119 confers time-extension power but cannot impose new substantive eligibility conditions; and that administrative delay by revenue does not justify denying access where an application was already filed.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Reasonable classification principle: differential deadline for charitable trust tax recognition cannot lack rational basis or equality protection.
A departmental circular extended a filing deadline for tax recognition to mitigate hardship but excluded newly formed charitable trusts without offering reasons; the exclusion lacked an intelligible differentia and rational nexus to the circular's object, making the differential treatment arbitrary and ultra vires the constitutional guarantee of equality, requiring the excluded applications to be treated as within time and decided on merits.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
ITSC jurisdiction extends beyond application disclosures, while full and true disclosure and narrow judicial review govern settlement oversight.
The Income Tax Settlement Commission may inquire into and decide issues disclosed in the application and any other matters relating to the case as reflected in the Commissioner's report or uncovered by further inquiry; full and true disclosure is mandatory and amendments or contradictory positions that undermine that requirement are impermissible, yet contesting taxability before the Commission does not automatically negate disclosure; judicial review is limited to statutory contravention, prejudice, fraud, bias or malice, while sufficiency of materials placed before the Commission is generally beyond routine court scrutiny.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Delay condonation denied where litigant's evasive conduct and non participation failed to constitute sufficient cause for appeal filing.
The court refused condonation of delay for filing an appeal where a best judgment assessment treated cash bank deposits as unexplained after the assessee failed to file returns or participate in proceedings; reliance on transition to a faceless e filing regime and lack of alerts was held insufficient, as the assessee's evasive and habitual non participation did not amount to sufficient cause warranting condonation under the applicable doctrine.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Sufficient cause for delay in filing appeals rejected where faceless scheme migration did not excuse prolonged inaction.
The court held that migration to a faceless appeal system did not, without persuasive evidence, constitute sufficient cause to condone a lengthy delay in filing an appeal, finding the explanation reflective of litigant inaction rather than unavoidable impediment. On tax deduction, the court applied authority that a non-obstante clause does not negate the employer's obligation to deposit employees' statutory contributions by the due date as a condition for claiming the deduction, and treated the appeal as meritless and barred by limitation.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Source of source doctrine used to pierce the corporate veil where share capital appears round tripped among related entities.
The assessee must prove identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of investors under section 68; examination extends to the true origin of funds where bank records show circular transfers, related party directorships, lack of business operations, and arbitrary share premium, permitting lifting the corporate veil and application of the source of source doctrine to treat such receipts as not satisfactorily explained.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Transfer of assessment proceedings for coordinated investigations and administrative convenience upheld where procedural safeguards and factual links exist.
The judgment explains that transfers of assessment proceedings pursuant to the statutory transfer power may be justified for coordinated enquiries and administrative convenience, provided the decision is not capricious or mala fide. Authorities must afford an opportunity to be heard and consider objections; where factual indicia exist - for example, disclosed transactions such as unsecured loans with searched persons - centralisation can be sustained. The convenience of the assessee is relevant but subservient to effective adjudication and tax collection, and transfers supported by procedural compliance and factual nexus are not arbitrary.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Burden of proof in share premium cases: failure to prove investor identity and genuineness sustains addition under section 68.
The assessment of share premium under section 68 requires the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of investors who subscribe at a premium. The court scrutinised disparate allotments made on consecutive days, examined subscribing companies' financials, and applied the doctrine of "source of source" restrictively, holding that incorporation papers or bank payments alone do not discharge the burden. Absent cogent evidence tracing funds to lawful origin and demonstrating commercial rationale for large premiums, additions under section 68 are supportable.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Strict construction of penalty provisions prevents penalty where taxpayer disclosed omitted income before assessment notice.
The legal focal point is whether Section 271(1)(c) can be invoked where an assessee disclosed omitted income and paid differential tax before initiation of reassessment. Penal provisions require strict construction, and Explanation 1 treats a pre-notice satisfactory explanation and admission of additional income as accepted, precluding characterization as concealment. Additionally, a penalty notice must specify the particular ground for proceeding; failure to do so renders the notice defective and undermines the basis for penalty.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Scope of reassessment: AO may address newly noticed income but remains constrained by the recorded reasons for reopening.
Where the AO has recorded reasons to believe income escaped assessment, the AO may assess or reassess issues that come to notice during reassessment, but if no additions or modifications are ultimately made in respect of the issues that formed the basis for reopening, the AO cannot make additions or modifications relating solely to other matters that were part of the original assessment. Explanation 3 applies only after reassessment power is validly invoked and cannot be used to deviate from or supplant the recorded reasons.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Corroboration requirement for search statements: unsupported search statements cannot sustain additions without linked incriminating material and fair cross examination.
Additions for alleged accommodation entries cannot rest solely on statements recorded during search operations; such statements require corroboration by material found in the search that is specifically linked to the assessee. The assessing officer must articulate a factual nexus between seized group material and the assessee, and procedural fairness-including provision of relevant statements and opportunity for cross-examination-is essential. Cure provisions do not validate jurisdictional defects arising from absence of requisite notice or lack of incriminating material.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Registration under Section 80G: provisional approval permits subsequent final registration regardless of prior commencement of activities.
The Tribunal held that institutions granted provisional approval under the First Proviso to Section 80G(5) are entitled to apply for final registration under the proviso's final-registration clause, and that the relevant date of commencement is to be counted from activities undertaken after grant of provisional registration; a prior commencement of activities before provisional grant cannot alone justify rejection of a final-approval application.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Search assessment provisions under Sections 153A and 153C override ordinary reassessment time limits; asset-threshold verification required.
The judgment holds that search-triggered assessment provisions function as non-obstante clauses displacing ordinary reassessment time limits, distinguishes the enduring liability to tax from the temporal right to assess, prescribes that block periods are computed from the year of search (or date of receipt of seized records for non-searched persons), and treats the asset-represented income threshold as a mandatory, aggregable precondition requiring the assessing officer's recorded satisfaction.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Seized-material nexus under Section 153C: AO must form reasoned satisfaction before reopening assessments for specific years.
Section 153C requires the Assessing Officer to form a reasoned satisfaction that seized material during a search has a bearing on an assessee's total income before initiating assessments; mere discovery is insufficient, and the AO must identify specific assessment years, map incriminating material year-wise, and record reasons to justify abatement or reopening.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Royalty classification of software payments: remittances for software purchases are not treated as royalty under established precedent.
Where distribution agreements or End User License Agreements do not grant any proprietary interest or a right to use copyright, payments for acquiring computer software are not to be characterised as royalty; this conclusion follows controlling precedent and DTAA considerations and renders an Assessing Officer's contrary classification inconsistent with the correct legal interpretation.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Reopening assessments: procedural compliance and substantive escapement requirements determine validity of reassessment notices.
The judgment examines validity of notices under Section 148, holding that TOLA does not apply retrospectively for the assessment year at issue and notices issued after the statutory cutoff cannot be back-dated. Notices barred by the limitation in Section 149(1) are ineffective. Procedural prerequisites - notably issuance of a Document Identification Number and issuance through automated allocation by the faceless centre rather than direct action by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer - are mandatory. Substantively, reopening requires escapement of income in the form of an asset, expenditure, transaction, event, or book entry; a mere change of opinion or dispute over an ordinarily allowed deduction does not meet that threshold.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Faceless assessment: issuance of section 148 reopening notices by jurisdictional assessing officers inconsistent with faceless regime.
The faceless assessment framework under Section 151A and the Scheme dated 29 March 2022 allocates exclusive jurisdiction to either the Faceless Assessment Officer or the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for issuance of reopening notices and assessments; actions by an authority outside its assigned jurisdiction are inconsistent with the faceless regime and cause prejudice to the taxpayer as a matter of law.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Deduction eligibility for operational hotels affirmed despite administrative delay in star classification, focusing on substantive compliance.
The court addressed entitlement to a deduction under Section 35AD(5)(aa) where a hotel began operations and generated income in the relevant year and a timely application for star classification was submitted, but formal certification was delayed due to administrative inspections; the court applied a purposive construction to allow the deduction when substantive operational conditions were satisfied and delay was not the assessee's fault.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Depreciation entitlement for leasing companies where contractual ownership and business use are established, allowing higher depreciation rates.
A lessor retains entitlement to depreciation where lease terms demonstrate exclusive ownership rights, repossession power, return obligations and inspection rights, and where the asset is used in the course of the lessor's leasing business; actual physical use by the lessor is not required. Leasing activity that functionally equates to hiring can qualify assets for an enhanced rate of depreciation despite registration in the lessee's name.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Revenue classification of debenture issuance expenses upheld as revenue expenditure despite later conversion into equity.
Expenses incurred to issue convertible debentures that are raised to provide working capital are to be treated as revenue expenditure because classification depends on the purpose and usage of the expenditure, and future conversion into shares does not change its revenue character.

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

Showing Results for :
Reset Filters
No Records Found

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

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

Acts Income Tax