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 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