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 156 "Rebate of income-tax in case of certain individuals." 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 156 Rebate of income-tax in case of certain individuals.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Clause 156 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - (Old Version) provides for a rebate/deduction from income-tax for certain resident individuals based on total income thresholds of Rs. 5,00,000 and Rs. 12,00,000, with monetary caps of Rs. 12,500 and Rs. 60,000 respectively. It affects resident individual taxpayers and the tax department's computation of tax liability. Effective date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hook: Clause 156 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Rebate of income-tax in case of certain individuals). The provision is situated under the Bill's rubric "Rebates and reliefs." The clause aims to provide a deduction from income-tax payable for resident individual assessees whose total income falls below specified thresholds. The clause refers to computation "before allowing the deduction under this section" and to tax charged u/s 202(1). Definitions of "resident," "total income," or "income-tax payable" are Not stated in the document (they are presumed to be defined elsewhere in the Bill/Act). The clause contains three sub-sections setting out the conditions and caps for the deduction.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Clause 156 provides as follows (material elements synthesized):

      • Sub-section (1): A resident individual assessee whose total income does not exceed Rs. 5,00,000 is entitled to a deduction from income-tax (computed before this deduction) equal to 100% of income-tax payable or Rs. 12,500, whichever is less.
      • Sub-section (2): Where a resident individual's total income is chargeable to tax u/s 202(1), deductions from income-tax (computed before this deduction) are allowed as follows: (a) if total income does not exceed Rs. 12,00,000, then 100% of income-tax payable or Rs. 60,000, whichever is less; (b) if income exceeds Rs. 12,00,000, then "the income-tax payable on the total income, reduced by total income which is in excess of twelve lakh rupees."
      • Sub-section (3): The deduction under sub-section (2) shall not exceed income-tax payable as per the rates provided in section 202(1).

      Scope: The relief is available only to resident individual assessees and is expressed as a deduction from income-tax chargeable on total income; it expressly contemplates interaction with section 202(1) tax computation.

      Interpretation

      The clause frames the relief as a deduction from the tax liability (not from gross income). The use of caps (Rs. 12,500 and Rs. 60,000) establishes fixed monetary ceilings. Sub-section (2) differentiates treatment depending on whether total income crosses the Rs. 12,00,000 threshold. The reference to tax computed "before allowing the deduction under this section" clarifies the order of computation: tax is calculated first, then the rebate/deduction is applied up to the stated limits. The provision's language in clause (2)(b) is formulaic and requires arithmetic reduction of tax payable by the excess of income over Rs. 12,00,000.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      No express provisos beyond the numerical thresholds and caps are provided. There is no textual carve-out for non-residents, non-individuals, or particular categories of income; however, the clause is expressly limited to "resident individual assessee." Any other exceptions or exclusions are Not stated in the document.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: Total income = Rs. 4,50,000; income-tax computed before rebate = Rs. 10,000. Under sub-section (1), deduction = 100% of tax payable (Rs. 10,000) or Rs. 12,500 whichever is less; deduction = Rs. 10,000; net tax = nil.
      • Example 2: Total income = Rs. 11,00,000; income-tax computed before rebate (u/s 202(1)) = Rs. 50,000. Under sub-section (2)(a) deduction = 100% of tax payable or Rs. 60,000 whichever is less; deduction = Rs. 50,000; net tax = nil.
      • Example 3: Total income = Rs. 13,00,000; income-tax computed before rebate = Rs. 80,000. Under sub-section (2)(b) deduction = income-tax payable reduced by the excess over Rs. 12,00,000 (i.e., 80,000 minus 1,00,000) per the Bill's formula. Because that arithmetic would produce a negative number (-Rs. 20,000), the limitation in sub-section (3) and general interpretive principle that deduction cannot be negative means the deduction would effectively be nil; the text states the deduction "shall not exceed income-tax payable" but does not expressly address negative results - consequentially, a reasonable administrative interpretation would yield nil deduction. (Note: precise administrative treatment is Not stated in the document.)

      Interplay

      The clause explicitly interacts with section 202(1) - the rebate in sub-section (2) applies where total income is chargeable to tax under that section and sub-section (3) caps deductions to the tax payable "as per the rates provided in section 202(1)." References to other Rules, Notifications, or Circulars are Not stated in the document. The Bill does not provide procedural rules for claiming the deduction, nor does it reference forms or assessment mechanics; those matters are Not stated in the document.

      Differences between Section 156 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 and Clause 156 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - (Old Version)

      • Textual framing of subsection (1): The Bill (old version) uses the phrasing "A resident individual assessee" while the enacted Section uses "An assesse, being an individual resident in India."
        • Practical impact: purely stylistic; no substantive change to coverage (resident individual assessees remain the class eligible).
      • Subsection (2)(b) - Formulation and clarity of the deduction for incomes above Rs. 12 lakh: The Bill (old version) states: "the income exceeds twelve lakh rupees, the income-tax payable on the total income, reduced by total income which is in excess of twelve lakh rupees." The enacted Section states the condition more elaborately: "the total income exceeds twelve lakh rupees and the income-tax payable on such total income exceeds the amount by which the total income is in excess of twelve lakh rupees, an amount equal to the amount by which the income-tax payable on such total income is in excess of the amount by which the total income exceeds twelve lakh rupees."
        • Practical impact: The Bill's wording appears to direct a mechanical reduction of "income-tax payable" by the amount of income in excess of Rs. 12 lakh (a mismatch of units and likely leading to ambiguity/anomalous results). The enacted Section sets a conditional test and then grants a deduction equal to the excess of the tax payable over the excess income-thus the enacted text is clearer and avoids unit-mismatch confusion. In practice, the enacted text limits and clarifies the quantum of rebate available for higher incomes; the Bill's formulation could have produced interpretive and computational difficulties, possibly producing an unintended (and unworkable) formula.
      • Overall clarity and drafting precision: The enacted Section contains more precise conditional language in sub-section (2)(b).
        • Practical impact: reduced ambiguity for assessing officers, taxpayers and tax practitioners when computing the rebate for incomes exceeding Rs. 12 lakh; lowers litigation risk over interpretation of the mathematical reduction contemplated.
      • Subsection (3): Both texts contain identical limiting language that deduction under sub-section (2) shall not exceed income-tax payable as per rates in section 202(1).
        • Practical impact: none; both prohibit the rebate exceeding tax payable under the cited rate provision.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Taxpayers must determine whether total income is within the specified thresholds and whether tax is chargeable u/s 202(1) to ascertain entitlement. The formula in clause (2)(b) can produce ambiguity where the excess of income over Rs. 12,00,000 equals or exceeds tax payable; the provision's terse phrasing in the Bill may give rise to interpretive disputes as to whether any deduction is permissible in those cases. The Bill text does not state dispute-resolution or administrative guidance; therefore taxpayers and the department may require clarificatory instructions (Not stated in the document).
      • Record-keeping/evidence: The document does not specify documentation or forms required to claim the deduction. Presumably, computation records showing total income and tax computed before the deduction would be relevant; the document itself is Not stated on record keeping.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 156 provides a tax rebate (deduction from tax payable) for resident individual assessees with total income thresholds at Rs. 5,00,000 and Rs. 12,00,000.
      • Caps are specified: Rs. 12,500 for incomes up to Rs. 5,00,000; Rs. 60,000 for incomes up to Rs. 12,00,000.
      • For incomes above Rs. 12,00,000, the Bill prescribes a formula reducing tax payable by the excess of income over Rs. 12,00,000; the clause's terse wording may generate interpretive issues when the excess equals or exceeds tax payable.
      • The deduction is expressly subject to not exceeding tax payable u/s 202(1); other procedural and definitional matters are Not stated in the document.
      • Practical application requires careful arithmetic and may necessitate clarificatory guidance from the tax authorities to resolve edge cases arising under clause (2)(b).

      Full Text:

      Section 156 Rebate of income-tax in case of certain individuals.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax