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 199 "Tax on income of certain manufacturing domestic companies." between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

      4 September, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Section 199 Tax on income of certain manufacturing domestic companies.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      This document is Clause 199 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - (Old Version), which proposes a concessional 25% tax rate for certain domestic manufacturing companies subject to specified conditions. It matters to domestic companies engaged in manufacture or production (and related research/distribution) that were set up on or after 1 March 2016, and to the tax administration in determining eligibility and compliance. The document does not state an explicit effective date beyond the reference to "tax year" or enactment; no decision date is provided in the text.

      Background & Scope

      Statutory hooks: Clause 199 is placed within the "New tax regime" part of the Income Tax Bill, 2025. It operates "Irrespective of anything contained in this Act, but subject to the provisions of Parts A, B and this Part other than sections 200 and 201," thereby creating a standalone concessional regime subject to limited interplay with other Parts and sections. The provision applies to "a person, being a domestic company," and allows computation of income-tax at a flat rate of 25% at the option of the company, subject to enumerated conditions. Definitions or further explanations (such as definition of "manufacture" or "domestic company") are not stated in the document.

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Clause 199(1) authorises, by company option, computation of income-tax at 25% for a domestic company for any tax year, subject to three key conditions:

      • Condition (a): The company must have been set up and registered on or after 1st March, 2016.
      • Condition (b): The company must be engaged solely in the business of manufacture or production of any article or thing, and research in relation to, or distribution of, such article or thing manufactured or produced by it. In other words, the business must be limited to manufacturing/production and related research/distribution activities.
      • Condition (c): The company's total income must be computed without certain deductions listed in sub-clause (i) and without set-off of any loss carried forward attributable to those deductions per sub-clause (ii).

      Clause 199(1)(c)(i) specifies that the computation must be without deduction under (A) sections 45(2)(c) and 47(1)(b); (B) Chapter VIII-C, other than the provisions of section 146; or (C) sections specified in section 205(1)(a) to (g). Clause 199(1)(c)(ii) bars set-off of earlier year losses that are attributable to such disallowed deductions.

      Interpretation

      The clause expresses a legislative intent to create a preferable, simplified tax rate for qualifying manufacturing companies, while preventing duplication or continuance of other specified tax benefits. The language "Irrespective of anything contained in this Act" indicates a non-obstante clause intended to give the concessional rate primacy over other general provisions, but the carve-out "subject to the provisions of Parts A, B and this Part other than sections 200 and 201" indicates preserved interaction with certain Parts and specified sections. The option-based framework (see sub-sections (3) and (4)) suggests a taxpayer election that, once made, binds the company to the regime unless a separate option u/s 200 is exercised.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Not stated in the document: any express exemptions other than the listed exclusions from deduction. The clause contains implicit carve-outs:

      • Chapter VIII-C benefits are excluded except for section 146 (i.e., section 146 remains available, while other provisions in Chapter VIII-C are not). The document does not elaborate on the content of Chapter VIII-C or on the policy reasons for preserving section 146 only.
      • Sections specified in section 205(1)(a) to (g) are also excluded; the content of those sections is not reproduced in the clause.
      • Losses attributable to the disallowed deductions are barred from set-off; subsection (2) deems such losses to have been given full effect to, preventing future deduction-this is an absolute prohibition with no stated time limitation.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A domestic manufacturing company incorporated on 1 April 2017, carrying on only manufacture and distribution of its products, opts into Clause 199. It cannot claim tax deductions under Chapter VIII-C (except section 146), nor can it claim deductions u/ss 45(2)(c) or 47(1)(b). If it has earlier year losses attributable to those disallowed deductions, such losses cannot be set off in the option regime. (All specifics about amounts, calculation mechanics, and interplay with other sections are Not stated in the document.)
      • Example 2: A domestic company set up on 1 February 2016 would be ineligible because incorporation predates 1 March 2016. (The document does not state any transitional provisions.)

      Interplay

      The clause expressly limits interaction with Parts A and B and "this Part" (i.e., the Part containing the clause), excluding sections 200 and 201. It excludes Chapter VIII-C benefits (except section 146) and the listed sections in section 205(1)(a)-(g). The clause calls for an option exercised "in the manner as prescribed" with a reference point to the due date specified u/s 263(1) for filing the first return; thus, it anticipates additional procedural rules to be prescribed. Specific interaction with other Rules, Notifications, or Circulars is Not stated in the document.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas grounded in the document: Companies seeking the 25% rate must ensure eligibility-date of registration (on/after 1 March 2016), exclusive engagement in manufacture/production with related research/distribution, and careful computation of total income excluding specified deductions. Non-compliance with these conditions would jeopardise entitlement to the concessional rate. The clause's election mechanism, including timing linked to section 263(1), creates a procedural compliance risk if the option is not validly exercised.
      • Record-keeping/evidence points suggested by the text: Companies should maintain incorporation/registration records to evidence the registration date; detailed books and documents to demonstrate the nature of activities (manufacture/production, research, distribution) and to segregate income/expenses attributable to other businesses, if any; and documentation linking prior-year losses to specific deductions listed in Clause 199(1)(c)(i) to determine whether losses are barred from set-off.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 199 offers an elective flat 25% tax rate for qualifying domestic manufacturing companies incorporated on or after 1 March 2016.
      • Eligibility requires exclusive engagement in manufacture/production and related research/distribution; other business activities disqualify a company under the clause.
      • Certain deductions are expressly disallowed for companies opting into the regime-specifically sections 45(2)(c) and 47(1)(b), most of Chapter VIII-C (except section 146), and sections referred to in section 205(1)(a)-(g).
      • Losses carried forward attributable to those disallowed deductions cannot be set off; subsection (2) deems such losses to have been given full effect to.
      • The concessional rate is elective, requires prescribed procedural exercise by the due date u/s 263(1) for furnishing the first return, and once made, is binding unless section 200 is invoked; the document contains no detail on the prescribed manner.
      • The clause contains a non-obstante opening but preserves certain Parts/sections, indicating limited interplay rather than complete override of the Act.
      • Operational details (definitions, examples, prescribed forms/procedures, transitional rules, or effective date specifics) are Not stated in the document.

      Differences Between Documents and Practical Impact

      TopicEarlier Position (Clause 199 - Bill Old Version)Later Position (Section 199 - Act)
      Parts referenced as subject to"subject to the provisions of Parts A, B and this Part other than sections 200 and 201""subject to the provisions of Parts A, B, E and this Part (other than sections 200 and 201) of this Chapter"
      Reference to section 45(2)Disallowance references "sections 45(2)(c) and 47(1)(b)"Disallowance references "section 45(2) or 47(1)(b)"
      Prescription wording for exercise of option"in the manner as prescribed""in the manner as may be prescribed"
      Typographical/clerical varianceSub-section (4) references "section section 200" (duplication)Sub-section (4) references "section 200" (single)

      Practical impact of each change:

      • Inclusion of Part E in the Act's version (Section 199) expands the set of statutory provisions that the new regime is "subject to." This broadens potential interactions and conditions that survive the non-obstante clause; companies and practitioners would need to consider Part E compliance where relevant. The Bill version omitting Part E would have left such interactions narrower. (Specific contents of Part E and practical consequences are Not stated in the document.)
      • The Bill's specific reference to section 45(2)(c) narrows the disallowance to a particular sub-paragraph of section 45(2), whereas the enacted Section 199's reference to section 45(2) more broadly excludes deductions under the whole of section 45(2). The broader reference in the Act can widen the range of deductions that are incompatible with the concessional regime, increasing the number of prior benefits/losses that may be denied. This is a substantive change affecting eligibility and post-election tax position.
      • The change from "in the manner as prescribed" to "in the manner as may be prescribed" is modest; the latter is a more conventional legislative drafting phrase indicating prescription power. It likely has no material effect beyond standardising drafting.
      • Correction of a typographical duplication ("section section 200") clarifies the cross-reference; it has no substantive legal effect beyond removing ambiguity.

      Full Text:

      Section 199 Tax on income of certain manufacturing domestic companies.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax