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 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

Acts Income Tax