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 150 "Interpretation for purposes of section 149." 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 150 Interpretation for purposes of section 149

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Clause 150 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version). It proposes a tax deduction for Producer Companies: a 100% deduction of profits attributable to specified "eligible business" for qualifying Producer Companies subject to turnover and time limits. It matters to Producer Companies, tax practitioners, and the Revenue for administration and compliance. Effective period (if enacted as drafted) applies to tax years commencing on or after 1 April 2018 but before 1 April 2024.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: Clause 150 is part of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 and sits within the Chapter dealing with deductions in respect of certain incomes. The clause purports to grant a deduction to "an assessee" who is a Producer Company (definition cross-referencing section 378A(1) of the Companies Act, 2013) and meets turnover and income-character requirements. Definitions within the clause include "eligible business" and cross-references to the Companies Act for "Member" and "Producer Company." No other statutory cross-references or rules are provided in the text.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      The provision applies to an assessee who is a Producer Company, has total turnover of less than one hundred crore rupees in any tax year, and has profits and gains derived from an "eligible business" included in its gross total income. Such an assessee "shall be allowed a deduction of 100% of the profits and gains attributable to such business" for tax years commencing on or after 1 April 2018 but before 1 April 2024. Sub-section (2) prescribes sequencing: the deduction shall be allowed after the gross total income is reduced by any other deduction under the Chapter to which the assessee is entitled. Sub-section (3) defines "eligible business" by three categories: (i) marketing of agricultural produce grown by members; (ii) purchase of agricultural implements, seeds, livestock or other agriculture-intended articles for supply to members; and (iii) processing of agricultural produce of members. "Member" and "Producer Company" adopt meanings in Companies Act, 2013 (section 378A(e) and 378A(1) respectively).

      Interpretation

      Legislative intent, as indicated by the text, appears to be to incentivise Producer Companies engaged in specific agriculture-related activities by allowing a full tax deduction of attributable profits for a defined period and only for smaller Producer Companies (turnover < INR 100 crore). The sequencing rule in sub-section (2) suggests Parliament intended this deduction to be applied after other Chapter deductions, impacting the computation order within the Chapter. The express time window implies a temporary, promotional fiscal measure rather than a permanent regime.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      No explicit provisos beyond the eligibility conditions are present in the clause. There are three limiting conditions: (i) turnover threshold (less than INR 100 crore in any tax year); (ii) temporal limitation (tax years commencing on or after 1 April 2018 but before 1 April 2024); and (iii) that profits must be derived from an "eligible business" as defined. No explicit anti-abuse, attribution, or computation rules are specified in the clause text.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A Producer Company with turnover of INR 50 crore in tax year beginning 1 April 2019 derives INR 10 lakh profit from marketing agricultural produce grown by its members. Under the clause, it "shall be allowed a deduction of 100% of the profits and gains attributable to such business"-i.e., INR 10 lakh-subject to sequencing in sub-section (2).
      • Example 2: A Producer Company with turnover of INR 120 crore in tax year beginning 1 April 2020 derives profits from eligible business. The company fails the turnover condition and so is not eligible for the deduction under this clause.
      • Example 3: A Producer Company meeting the turnover test but having profits from non-member produce processing would only be eligible for deduction in respect of profits attributable to processing of members' agricultural produce; profits attributable to other activities are not covered.

      Interplay

      The clause cross-references the Companies Act, 2013 for meanings of "Member" and "Producer Company." It refers to application order within the Chapter (other deductions under this Chapter) but does not reference specific rules, notifications, or circulars that would govern attribution, apportionment, or procedural compliance. Not stated in the document: any interaction with transfer pricing, Minimum Alternate Tax, dividend distribution tax (if any), or other Chapters/Sections of the Act; nor is there any mention of consequential amendments, transitional provisions, or administrative guidance.

      Differences between Section 150 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 and Clause 150 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version)

      Document 1 is Section 150 of the Income-tax Act, 2025, titled "Interpretation for purposes of section 149," and contains short definitional provisions limited to "consumers' co-operative society", "primary agricultural credit society" and "primary co-operative agricultural and rural development bank." Document 2 is Clause 150 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version), substantive substantive provision titled "Deduction in respect of certain income of Producer Companies," providing a 100% deduction for profits from specified activities of Producer Companies subject to turnover and date limits, with definitions of "eligible business", "Member", and "Producer Company."

      • Subject matter: Document 1 is interpretive/definitional for section 149; Document 2 is a substantive tax incentive provision for Producer Companies. They address entirely different topics.

      • Scope and beneficiaries: Document 1 targets cooperative societies and primary agricultural credit institutions (definitions only); Document 2 targets Producer Companies with turnover below INR 100 crore carrying on specified activities.

      • Temporal operation and limits: Document 1 contains no temporal or percentage limits; Document 2 contains a time-bound deduction (tax years commencing on or after 1 April 2018 but before 1 April 2024) and a 100% deduction subject to turnover threshold and ordering with other deductions.

      • Definitions: Document 1 defines three cooperative-related terms; Document 2 defines "eligible business", "Member", and "Producer Company," and references Companies Act provisions for meaning of those terms.

      • Interaction with other provisions: Document 1 is expressly "For the purposes of section 149" (interpretation clause); Document 2 contains an internal sequencing rule about how the deduction is to be allowed (after reducing gross total income by other deductions under the Chapter).

      Practical impact: The two texts are not alternative or successive versions of the same provision; they represent distinct provisions. If enacted as shown, Document 1 would only supply definitions relevant to section 149, affecting interpretive application of that section to cooperative and primary agricultural credit institutions. Document 2 (if enacted) would grant a significant, time-bound tax incentive to qualifying Producer Companies, affecting tax planning, compliance, and the after-tax economics of small Producer Companies engaged in specified activities. There is no textual overlap or direct conflict between them based on the documents provided.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: The clause requires precise determination of (a) whether the entity is a Producer Company as per Companies Act definitions; (b) whether turnover in a tax year is less than INR 100 crore; and (c) whether profits are "attributable to" eligible business activities. The clause contains no attribution or apportionment methodology; absence of such methodology creates potential compliance risk and interpretive uncertainty regarding how to isolate profits of eligible business vs. other activities.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: Taxpayers will need contemporaneous records segregating revenues and costs by eligible business activity (marketing of members' produce; supply of agricultural inputs to members; processing of members' produce), membership records to establish that produce/inputs relate to members, and turnover computations for the tax year. Not stated in the document: specific documentary thresholds, required forms, or audit documentation standards.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 150 (Old Version) grants a time-bound 100% deduction for profits attributable to specified eligible businesses of Producer Companies with turnover below INR 100 crore, applicable for tax years commencing from 1 April 2018 to before 1 April 2024.
      • The deduction is sequenced to be allowed after reducing gross total income by other deductions under the same Chapter.
      • "Eligible business" is limited to marketing of members' agricultural produce, supply to members of agricultural inputs, and processing of members' agricultural produce.
      • The clause cross-references the Companies Act for meanings of "Member" and "Producer Company," thus importing corporate-law definitions into tax eligibility.
      • Significant gaps in the text: no method for attribution/apportionment of profits, no anti-abuse or anti-avoidance provisos, and no procedural compliance measures are provided-each is "Not stated in the document."
      • Practically, the measure would materially reduce taxable income for eligible Producer Companies during the stated period but will require careful segmentation of accounts and membership evidence.
      • Document 1 (Section 150 of the Income-tax Act, 2025) is unrelated in substance and provides definitions for section 149; it does not amend or replace Clause 150 of the Bill.

      Full Text:

      Section 150 Interpretation for purposes of section 149

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax