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
    Retrospective Cancellation of GST Registration: Analysis of Delhi High Court’s Ruling in 2024 (1) ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Deciphering Tax Implications on Capital Reduction: Navigating the Complexities of Section 115QA in I...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Navigating Regulatory Compliance: Analysis of a CHA License Revocation and Restoration Case
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Interpreting Section 153A: ITAT Delhi's Stand on Incriminating Material in Assessments: Assessments ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reaffirming the Bounds of Section 153A: Analysis of Delhi High Court's Approach: Assessment post sea...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Navigating Rectification and Revised Returns: Legal Insights from ITAT Bangalore's Ruling
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Mutual Fund Gains and Deemed Dividends: Analyzing the Delhi High Court's Landmark Judgment
    Case LawsCustoms
    Judicial Scrutiny of Customs Seizure and Redemption under the Indian Legal Framework: Foreign Curren...
    Case LawsCustoms
    The Duty of Diligence: Understanding the Legal Implications for Customs Brokers
    Case LawsCustoms
    Legal Analysis of a Customs Appeal Case Involving Mandatory Pre-Deposit Requirements
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Legal Elucidation of Homeopathic Product Classification under Central Excise Tariff Act: Medicament ...
    The Supreme Court's In-Depth Ruling on Corporate Insolvency: Legal Implications Explored
    Money Laundering and Bail: Supreme Court's Interpretation of Section 45 PMLA
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Reassessing Income under Section 147 Post-Quashment of Sections 153A/153C: The Waiver of Limitation ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 153A of the Income Tax Act: A Critical Analysis of the Supreme Court's Interpretation in the...
    The Intersection of Politics, Corruption, and Judicial Review: A Case Study: Validity of order of Hi...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Clarity and Precision in Tax Penalty Proceedings: Insights from a High Court Judgment
    NCLAT's Authority to Recall Judgments: The Intersection of Tribunal Authority and Justice
    Detention and Release of Goods under CGST Act: Discrepancies in the CGST registration of the consign...
    The Detention of Goods under GST Law: Doubts regarding the genuineness of the consignee
❯❯
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 LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Retrospective GST cancellation: court limits retroactive effect, stressing objective grounds and hearing rights for taxpayers.
    The court held that retrospective cancellation of GST registration cannot be applied mechanically and must be supported by objective grounds; mere non-filing does not automatically justify cancelling registration for earlier compliant periods. Procedural fairness requires an opportunity of being heard before imposing retrospective cancellation, and the temporal effect of cancellation should align with the taxpayer's cancellation application rather than an earlier retrospective date, given potential impacts such as denial of input tax credit.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Capital reduction transactions treated outside buyback levy when executed pre amendment; buyback tax not attracted.
    The Tribunal held that the capital reduction did not qualify as a buyback for purposes of the buyback tax provision because the transaction was completed before the amendment that broadened the provision's definition; relying on precedents distinguishing capital reduction from buybacks, the Tribunal rejected the revenue's tax avoidance contention and emphasised that the transaction date governs applicability of the amended definition.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Non transferability of CHA license: unauthorized sub letting triggered revocation, later reconsidered due to appellant hardship.
    A licensed CHA was found to have contravened CHALR by effectively transferring operational control to a Mumbai office through a Power of Attorney, breaching non transferability, CHA obligations to obtain authorisations and exercise due diligence, and supervision duties over employees; the firm was held accountable where the licence was used for financial gain.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Incriminating material requirement: Section 153A assessments require material specific to the assessee, not unrelated third party statements.
    Assessments following search operations must be grounded on incriminating material specifically linked to the assessee; material or statements derived from separate or third party search proceedings cannot, alone, serve as incriminating material against an unrelated assessee. Absent assesseespecific incriminating material, additions and disallowances in such assessments lack justification and cannot properly form the basis of adverse tax adjustments.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Admissibility of search statements: corroborative evidence required before additions in post-search tax assessments.
    Statements recorded under Section 132(4) have evidentiary value but cannot alone justify additions under Section 153A; corroborative material discovered during the search is required, and taxpayers must be afforded the opportunity to cross-examine and rebut adverse statements before assessments under Section 153A are finalized.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Rectification under Section 154: procedural lapses should not bar correction of apparent errors in tax returns.
    Interpretation of Section 154 treats misplacement of figures in an original return as a mistake apparent from the record, qualifying for statutory rectification; a revised return filed as a genuine corrective attempt may be recognised despite procedural lapses, and tax authorities should balance procedural compliance with the need to remedy apparent errors and assist taxpayers in claiming corrections.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Classification of Mutual Fund Gains: affirmed as capital gains, clarifies tests distinguishing business income and scope of deemed dividends.
    Classification of gains from mutual fund redemptions turns on intent, transaction frequency, holding period, accounting treatment and the factual matrix to determine capital gains versus business income. Distinguishing genuine capital contributions from transactions that function as distributions is essential before treating receipts as deemed dividends; absent characteristics of a loan or advance against profits, capital infusions should not be recharacterised as dividends.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Redemption under Customs Act: deemed payment recognized as exercising the redemption option despite pandemic-related delay.
    The judgment analyzes the redemption option under the Customs Act allowing fine payment in lieu of confiscation, focusing on the prescribed timeframe and on how actions by a petitioner while seized currency remains with the department can constitute exercise of that option. Considering pandemic-related disruption, the court applied purposive interpretation and concluded the department's refusal to accept a deemed payment was unjustified and that the petitioner's steps effectively availed the statutory redemption alternative.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Duty to exercise due diligence: strict licensing compliance can justify administrative revocation and security forfeiture for brokers.
    The headnote focuses on the duty of diligence under the CBLR 2018, identifying failures to advise clients, to verify information, and to supervise employees as breaches that can attract administrative penalties against a customs broker's licence. It also confirms that regulatory action may be initiated at the broker's registered location regardless of where the underlying transactions occurred, and highlights the need for compliance programs, client advisory practices, and employee training.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Mandatory pre-deposit requirement: payments made during investigation can be counted toward the appeal pre-deposit, protecting access to appeal.
    Interpretation of the pre-deposit requirement focuses on counting payments made during investigation toward the mandatory deposit for appellate admissibility; authorities must account for investigation-stage deposits when assessing compliance to avoid denying appeal rights on technical grounds and to give effect to substantive payment.
    Case LawsCentral Excise
    Show AI Summary
    Medicament classification confirmed for a homeopathic hair oil based on ingredients and ordinary perception under tariff law.
    Classification of a homeopathic hair oil as a medicament depends on the ingredients test and the common parlance test. The Tribunal treated AHAHO as a medicament because it contained recognised homeopathic constituents and was labelled under the homeopathic schedule; the Supreme Court affirmed that those medicinal ingredients and the product's perception as a homeopathic medicine outweigh cosmetic imagery and over the counter availability, and that tariff amendments did not change the classificatory result.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Resolution applicant eligibility under insolvency law can be disqualified by trust and company conflicts affecting CIRP participation.
    The judgment finds that valuation disclosures and newspaper publication of Form G met CIRP regulatory requirements despite website upload issues; materially revised resolution plans must be placed before the Committee of Creditors or are procedurally irregular; commercial wisdom of the CoC governs differential treatment of creditors subject to legal compliance; promoter settlement offers and Section 12-A applications require demonstrable CoC consideration; and resolution applicant eligibility is governed by Trusts Act and Companies Act conflicts, not by assumed disqualifications absent specific disqualification orders.
    Case LawsPMLA
    Show AI Summary
    Section 45 PMLA bail standard: stringent satisfaction required on non guilt and low risk of reoffence before granting bail.
    Interpretation of Section 45 PMLA requires a stringent bail standard: courts must be satisfied on reasonable grounds that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit an offence while on bail. An Enforcement Directorate investigation under the PMLA is distinct from predicate offence inquiries, so completion of predicate investigations does not substitute for the specific assessment required under the PMLA; courts must therefore evaluate the seriousness of allegations and the stage and character of the ED probe when considering bail.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reopening assessments under Section 147 requires proper review when Section 150(2) waiver is contested, not clarification.
    Reopening of assessments under Section 147 concerns whether the Assessing Officer has a reason to believe that income has escaped assessment and is subject to procedural safeguards including issuance of a statutory notice. Where prior assessments made in consequence of a search under provisions for search-based assessment were quashed, the question arises whether fresh proceedings may be initiated for income not arising from incriminating material found in the search and whether the limitation period can be waived under Section 150(2) to permit issuance of a notice for reassessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Scope of assessment post-search: completed assessments permit additions only from incriminating material found during searches.
    The Supreme Court clarified that for assessments completed before a search, the Assessing Officer's power to reassess within the retrospective period is constrained: any additions in such completed assessments must be based on incriminating material discovered during the search, thereby limiting use of search powers to matters tied to the unearthed evidence and preventing expansion of assessments on unrelated material.
    Case LawsPMLA
    Show AI Summary
    Judicial oversight of criminal investigations must be cautious to avoid unwarranted de novo probes that disrupt investigative progress.
    The commentary critiques a High Court-ordered de novo investigation into recruitment corruption, treating such measures as extraordinary remedies that should not unsettle substantial prior investigative work. It stresses judicial discipline and adherence to precedent, warns against collusion and political interference in inquiries, recognises expanded locus standi for third parties in complex cases, affirms confidentiality of confession material with limited exceptions, and outlines the Enforcement Directorate's powers in probing and recovering proceeds of money laundering.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Specificity in penalty notices: requirement to identify exact charge prevents defective proceedings and safeguards procedural fairness.
    Applicability of penalty for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars requires the assessing officer to specify the exact limb under which proceedings are initiated; absence of that specificity renders the penalty notice defective, undermines procedural fairness, and justifies setting aside the penalty, thereby obliging tax authorities to adhere to precise notice requirements when invoking penal provisions.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Inherent jurisdiction to recall judgments affirms tribunals can correct proceedings tainted by procedural vitiation or jurisdictional defect.
    The tribunal recognised its inherent jurisdiction to recall judgments distinct from review, holding that recall is available where procedural vitiation, fraud, lack of jurisdiction or failure of natural justice renders a proceeding a nullity. Drawing on the tribunal rules analogue to residual civil-procedure power and higher-court authority, the tribunal treated recall as an incidental order to prevent abuse of process and to correct proceedings affected by jurisdictional defect or gross procedural lapse.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Detention and release under Section 129: proper tax invoice and e way bill establish owner status and permit release.
    Where goods intercepted in transit show a proper tax invoice and a valid e way bill identifying the consignor/consignee, those documents establish ownership for purposes of Section 129 and direct application of the release provision applicable when the owner comes forward; documentary compliance thus determines which release regime applies where GST registration discrepancies are alleged.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Detention of goods under GST: enforcement must assess consignee genuineness and documentary compliance before imposing penalties.
    Detention of goods in transit was contested where authorities suspected the consignee's genuineness despite production of a tax invoice and an E way bill; the Court directed that enforcement action distinguish between penalty provisions and alternative statutory mechanisms, require strict procedural fairness, assess documentary evidence and consignee identity, and remit the matter for fresh administrative consideration accordingly.

    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