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 153 "Deduction for interest on deposits." 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 153 Deduction for interest on deposits.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Clause 153 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) sets out deductions for interest on deposits for specified categories of assessees (individuals - both non-senior and senior citizens - and Hindu undivided families). It prescribes monetary ceilings and identifies eligible deposit institutions. The provision affects taxpayers (individuals and HUFs) who receive interest on deposits with banks, cooperative banks and Post Offices. Effective date or enactment timing: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: Clause 153 sits within the chapter heading "Deductions in respect of other incomes." It addresses deduction from gross total income where that income includes interest on deposits. The clause identifies assessees eligible for deduction: (a) individuals not being senior citizens, (b) individuals being senior citizens, and (c) Hindu undivided families. Eligible deposit takers are defined by reference to existing regulatory statutes - Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (for banking companies), cooperative societies engaged in banking (including cooperative land mortgage/development banks), and Post Offices as defined in section 2(k) of the Post Office Act, 2023. The clause contains an internal definition of "time deposits."

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Clause 153(1) establishes that an assessee in the enumerated categories shall be allowed a deduction from gross total income, subject to sub-section (2), where it includes income by way of interest on deposits with specified institutions (banking companies under the Banking Regulation Act, cooperative societies carrying on banking, or Post Offices as defined). Clause 153(2) prescribes the quantum and account-type limitations for the deduction for a tax year:

      • (a) For non-senior individuals and HUFs: whole interest up to a maximum of ten thousand rupees on deposits in a savings account, excluding time deposits.
      • (b) For senior citizens: whole interest up to a maximum of fifty thousand rupees on deposits in a savings account, including time deposits.

      Clause 153(3) states that where the income referred to in "this section" is derived from any deposit in a savings account held by or on behalf of a firm, association of persons or body of individuals, no deduction shall be allowed under the section in respect of such income in computing the total income of any partner/member/individual of such entity. Clause 153(4) defines "time deposits" as deposits repayable on expiry of fixed periods.

      Interpretation

      The text distinguishes assessees by age (senior citizen vs non-senior) and by entity type (individual/HUF). The deduction is account-specific: savings accounts are central to the non-senior/HUF benefit; the senior citizen provision explicitly refers to savings accounts but also states "including time deposits." This combination may require interpretive attention, as "savings account" and "time deposits" are traditionally distinct categories. The legislature's inclusion of "time deposits" within the senior citizen sub-clause signals an intent to extend benefit to interest from fixed-term deposits for senior citizens, but restricting the words "savings account" to both categories may create an internal tension requiring purposive construction. The restriction in sub-section (3) prevents pass-through of the concession to partners/members where the deposit is held by or on behalf of a partnership/AOP/BOI.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      No further provisos or carve-outs are provided beyond the account-type limitations, monetary ceilings and the bar on deduction where deposits are held by firms/AOPs/BOIs and the definition of time deposits. Specific exceptions for other classes of entities (e.g., companies, trusts) are not provided. Not stated in the document: any specific anti-avoidance measures, procedural compliance, or certificate/documentation requirements for claiming the deduction.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1 - Non-senior individual: A non-senior individual receives interest of Rs. 12,000 in a tax year from a savings account (excluding time deposits). Under Clause 153(2)(a), deduction allowed is the whole of interest up to Rs. 10,000; thus Rs. 10,000 deductible, and Rs. 2,000 remains taxable. (This example is a direct application of the numeric ceiling stated.)
      • Example 2 - Senior citizen: A senior citizen receives Rs. 45,000 interest in the tax year from a five-year fixed deposit held with a bank. Clause 153(2)(b) permits deduction of whole interest up to Rs. 50,000 on deposits in a savings account, "including time deposits." Applying the text, the senior citizen may claim deduction up to Rs. 45,000 (subject to interpretation of "savings account" phrase). The full interest would be deductible, being below the Rs. 50,000 ceiling. (This example follows the provision as worded.)
      • Example 3 - Partner of firm: A partner receives share of interest income from a savings account held by the firm. Clause 153(3) bars deduction in computing the partner's total income in respect of such income. (Direct textual application.)

      Interplay

      The clause references the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and Post Office Act, 2023 for institutional definitions. Not stated in the document: any interaction with other specific sections of the Income-tax Code concerning income classification (e.g., treatment of interest as "income from other sources") or rules governing computation of gross total income. Not stated in the document: whether the clause displaces general provisions on deduction elsewhere in the Code or specific filing/conduct requirements in rules or notifications.

      Differences between Section 153 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 and Clause 153 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version)

      • Scope of deductible interest for senior citizens (sub-section (2)(b)): The Act version permits deduction for senior citizens of "the whole of the interest up to a maximum amount of Rs. 50,000 on deposits in any account, including time deposits." The Bill (Old Version) limits the wording to "deposits in a savings account, including time deposits."
        • Practical impact: The Act version is broader-allows senior citizens to claim the deduction on interest from any kind of deposit account (savings or other accounts), whereas the Bill's older text confines the benefit to savings accounts (albeit it still says "including time deposits," creating a textual ambiguity). This change affects the tax benefit available to senior citizens who hold interest-bearing deposits in non-savings accounts (e.g., term accounts held in non-savings category) - under the Act version they clearly receive relief; under the Bill version they may be excluded.
      • Treatment of non-senior individuals and HUFs (sub-section (2)(a)): Both versions provide that individuals (non-senior) and HUFs may claim deduction up to Rs. 10,000 on interest on deposits in a savings account excluding time deposits. Wording differs only in numeric styling ("Rs. 10000" vs. "ten thousand rupees") and punctuation; substantive position appears consistent.
        • Practical impact: None substantive; same monetary ceiling and exclusion of time deposits.
      • Structure and placement of prohibitions when deposits are held by firms/AOPs/BOIs (sub-sections (3) and (4)): The Act separates prohibitions: (3) bars deduction for the non-senior/HUF category where income referred to in sub-section (2)(a) derives from deposits in a savings account held by/for a firm/AOP/BOI; (4) separately bars deduction for the senior citizen category where income referred to in sub-section (2)(b) derives from deposits held by/for such entities. The Bill consolidates the restriction into a single sub-section (3) referring to "where the income referred to in this section is derived from any deposit in a savings account held by, or on behalf of, a firm, an association of persons or a body of individuals, no deduction shall be allowed ... in computing the total income of any partner ... member ... or individual ..."
        • Practical impact: The Bill's single provision speaks only of "savings account" deposits and references "this section" generally; it could be interpreted as not addressing the situation where the senior-citizen deduction applies to non-savings accounts (if the Bill's (2)(b) were read to permit non-savings accounts). The Act's split provisions are clearer in mapping the prohibition to each beneficiary category. The Act thus reduces interpretive uncertainty about applicability of the bar for senior citizens when the Act allows deduction on "any account."
      • Definition/placement of "time deposits": The Bill defines "time deposits" in its sub-section (4): "In this section, 'time deposits' means the deposits repayable on expiry of fixed periods." The Act places that definition as sub-section (5) with essentially identical wording.
        • Practical impact: None substantive; placement/numbering differs but definition unchanged.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Taxpayers must identify whether interest originates from an eligible institution and whether the deposit is a "savings account" or a "time deposit" (as defined). The clause differentiates benefits by assessees (non-senior vs senior), so accurate taxpayer classification (seniority) is essential. The textual overlap ("savings account, including time deposits" for senior citizens) could give rise to disputes concerning eligibility of particular deposit types; taxpayers and practitioners should be prepared to justify characterization of accounts. The prohibition in sub-section (3) requires attention where deposits are held by firms/AOPs/BOIs to prevent incorrect claims by partners/members.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: Retain bank/postal account statements, deposit receipts, account opening documents identifying account type, and evidence of senior citizenship status (if claiming the senior citizen ceiling). Where deposit is held on behalf of a firm/AOP/BOI, retain documentation demonstrating beneficial ownership/arrangement to establish whether the bar in sub-section (3) applies. Not stated in the document: specific documentary threshold or certificate formats.

      Key Takeaways

      • The Clause targets individuals (non-senior and senior) and HUFs with specified ceilings for deduction on interest from deposits.
      • Non-senior individuals and HUFs: deduction capped at Rs. 10,000 on interest from savings accounts (excluding time deposits).
      • Senior citizens: deduction capped at Rs. 50,000 and the text purports to include time deposits; the phraseology creates potential interpretive ambiguity concerning account types.
      • Deposits held by or on behalf of firms/AOPs/BOIs are expressly excluded from allowing the deduction to partners/members/individuals under this section.
      • "Time deposits" are defined in the clause as deposits repayable on expiry of fixed periods.
      • The clause refers to regulated banking/cooperative/postal institutions; other deposit takers are not within the clause's scope as drafted.
      • Not stated in the document: effective date, procedural mechanics, or interactions with other Code provisions beyond the express references.

      Full Text:

      Section 153 Deduction for interest on deposits.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax