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
    The Legal Contours of Input Tax Credit Eligibility: Procedural Aspects of GST and ITC
    Case LawsService Tax
    Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM): Service Tax Implications for Exporters: A Legal Perspective on Forei...
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Cheque Dishonour and Corporate Responsibility: Analyzing the Supreme Court's Latest Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Notices / orders without DIN. The Critical Role of Procedural Compliance in Tax Administ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Tax Exemptions: Capitation Fees in Educational Institutions: A Legal Quagmire
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Procedural Technicalities vs. Substantive Justice in Tax Administration: A High Court Perspective
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Revision u/s 263 and denial of deduction u/s 80IA: A Critical Analysis of the Delhi High Court's Jud...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Condonation of Delay and Jurisdictional Challenges: A Case Analysis of ITAT Kolkata's Decision
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Legal Analysis: Scrutiny of Share Capital and Premium Under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Judicial Scrutiny of Retrospective Cancellation of Charitable Trust Registration: A Case Analysis of...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Office and Prosecution under Income Tax Act: Jurisdiction of Trial Court - Decision in a High Profil...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxation of Unexplained Income at Higher Rate of tax u/s 115BBE : A Comprehensive Analysis of the IT...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Analysis of ITAT Mumbai Judgment - Transfer Pricing Adjustment Dispute: Period of limitation u/s 144...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    In-Depth Analysis of Key Issues in the ITAT Chennai Judgement
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Doctrine of Merger in Income Tax Assessment: An Analysis of ITAT Chennai's Recent Judgment
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Delay in refund processing, the petitioner's entitlement to interest, and the court's decision to gr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Rejection of revision application u/s 264 in favor of assessee: A beneficial provision of Income Tax...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    An Analysis of ITAT Decision on International Taxation, Capital Gains, and DTAA
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Taxability of CSR fund: Treatment of certain funds received by an entity, particularly focusing on w...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Legal Analysis of ESOP Deduction and allowability in the Revised Return of income: An ITAT decision.
❯❯
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
    Input Tax Credit eligibility: procedural limits on reversing claims without supplier inquiry and GSTR-2A non-reflection not dispositive.
    Section 16(2) sets the statutory conditions for Input Tax Credit-tax invoice, receipt, tax payment, and return filing-and GSTR-2A serves only as a facilitator; non-reflection there does not automatically negate eligibility. Tax authorities must inquire into supplier conduct and observe procedural safeguards before reversing ITC or recovering tax from the recipient, with judicial precedents and CBIC clarifications shaping when exceptions may apply.
    Case LawsService Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reverse charge mechanism: exporter not liable for foreign bank charges when Indian bank is the direct service recipient.
    The core issue is whether an exporter is liable under the Reverse Charge Mechanism for foreign bank charges deducted from export proceeds when those charges are imposed on and paid by an Indian intermediary bank. The Tribunal's analysis focuses on the definition of service recipient and territorial scope, concluding that the direct recipient-the Indian bank-is the party liable to discharge service tax while the exporter, as an indirect beneficiary without direct dealings with the foreign bank, is not subject to reverse charge.
    Case LawsIndian Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Directorial liability: strict averment requirement prevents presuming directors' responsibility without specific allegation, leading to quashing.
    The Court held that directorial liability requires specific averment that the director was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the time of the offence; mere titular position or awareness of cheque issuance is insufficient. It emphasized the necessity of serving the statutory notice prerequisite and rejected liberal construction to cure absent statutory averments, quashing proceedings against directors for non-compliance.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    DIN requirement in tax administration: absence of mandatory DIN can invalidate assessment orders unless exceptional circumstances apply.
    Failure to quote the mandatory computer-generated Document Identification Number (DIN) in assessment orders, as required by the CBDT Circular from 1 October 2019, constitutes a procedural defect that can render the order invalid unless the revenue demonstrates that the issuance fell within the Circular's narrowly drawn exceptional circumstances; the Tribunal found such non-compliance in the order dated 15 October 2019 and the High Court affirmed, while the Supreme Court granted interim stay for further consideration.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Capitation fee allegations challenge admissibility and attribution of seized evidence in charitable trust tax exemption inquiries.
    Alleged collection of capitation fees by a registered charitable trust threatens its exemption under Section 11; most evidence was seized from employees' residences, invoking the presumption under Section 132(4A) and raising attribution issues. Employee admissions later retracted, similar statement drafting, declarations under the Income Declaration Scheme 2016, and trustees' acknowledgments create contradictory evidentiary threads that complicate admissibility, credibility, and whether the seized funds can be treated as trust income.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay in tax compliance: liberal interpretation protects bona fide taxpayers from technical disqualification.
    The court analysed whether delay in filing Form 10 could be condoned, considering the petitioner's unawareness of post 2016 amendments, CBDT circulars and precedent, and applying principles that each case be judged on its facts; it stressed that failure to claim accumulation does not by itself show absence of intent to comply and urged a liberal approach to mitigate genuine hardship and prevent procedural technicalities from defeating substantive justice.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Section 263 limited to substantial legal errors; mere differences of opinion don't justify revisional tax action.
    Scope of Section 263 is confined to instances where an assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to revenue in a substantial way, not mere differences of opinion. Migration of licences from IP VPN to NLD ILD does not, by itself, create a new undertaking defeating entitlement to deduction under Section 80IA(4)(ii), particularly where identical deductions were previously allowed; administrative migration requires clear proof of substantive change before re characterising eligibility.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Delay condonation based on sufficient cause upheld where illness, relocation and pandemic disruption justified late filing and jurisdictional challenge.
    The tribunal applied a purposive construction of sufficient cause to condone substantial delay where cumulative factors-serious illness, change of residence and pandemic disruption-made filing untimely. It also found the assessment infirm for want of territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction because the taxpayer had established residence and filing history in a different territorial unit and administrative guidance allocated jurisdiction accordingly, underscoring that proper vesting of authority is a condition precedent to valid assessment.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Unexplained cash credits under Section 68 require taxpayers to prove investor identity and genuineness; authorities must rebut with evidence.
    Applicability of Section 68 requires the assessee to establish investor identity, creditworthiness and transaction genuineness-via PAN, tax returns, audited accounts and bank statements-and once this initial burden is satisfied, the burden shifts to the revenue to rebut with concrete evidence; mere suspicion or inability to trace an ultimate source does not alone justify additions if investments are reasonable relative to investors' net worth and effected through banking channels.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Retrospective cancellation of charitable trust registration invalidated due to lack of competent jurisdiction and procedural non compliance.
    The Tribunal invalidated the cancellation of a charitable trust's registration because the regional authority lacked competence to cancel under the statutory scheme and the transfer used to reassign the matter was improper; it further held that applying the newer cancellation provision retrospectively to deprive the trust of its recognized status was not legally tenable, emphasizing required notice, hearing and adherence to principled statutory interpretation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Jurisdiction in multi locational offences governs venue determination; magistrate discretion and supervisory thresholds shape tax prosecution forums under criminal procedure.
    The judgment analyses Cr.P.C. place of offence principles in multi locational tax prosecutions, assessing whether procedural acts like recording statements under the Income Tax Act determine venue. It evaluates the magistrate's discretion in taking cognizance where alleged offences span jurisdictions and outlines the threshold for superior court supervisory intervention, emphasising that extraordinary petitions require demonstration of abuse of process or exceptional circumstances before altering magistrate venue determinations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Taxation of unexplained income: higher-rate treatment applies, and deductions including partner salary are disallowed.
    The tribunal held that excess unrecorded stock and cash found on survey were assessable as unexplained investment and unexplained money, and that the special higher-rate taxation provision applies to such income, taxing it at a higher fixed rate and disallowing any deduction; consequently the claimed partner's salary relating to the unexplained investment was disallowed.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Limitation under section 144C: assessment issued beyond statutory period, leaving transfer pricing adjustment unresolved on procedural grounds.
    The tribunal focused on the statutory time limit under Section 144C(13) for passing assessment orders after DRP directions, treated the order as barred by limitation and therefore did not adjudicate substantive transfer pricing challenges raised under Section 92CA. Consequently, technical disputes over comparability, exclusion/inclusion of comparables, and the profit level indicator computation were left unexamined.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Capitalization of interest: tribunal scrutinised whether interest and forex on capital projects form capital cost or permit revenue deduction.
    The tribunal analyzed four core taxation questions: whether interest and foreign exchange fluctuations written off from Capital Work in Progress are capital or revenue in nature and their nexus to business operations; whether write off of a DG set component should be treated within the block of assets for depreciation or as a revenue repair; the applicability of Section 36(1)(iii) to proportionate interest on interest free advances to related concerns and the presumption from mixed funds; and the evidentiary requirements to establish that inter corporate deposits were funded from own funds rather than borrowed monies for interest deduction purposes.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Doctrine of merger limits revisional jurisdiction under appeals, preventing collateral review of identical legal issues.
    The Doctrine of Merger operates to treat legal issues from an assessment as merged into appeal proceedings before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), thereby constraining subsequent revisional jurisdiction over those same issues; applied where initial assessment, reassessment notices and search-related assessment steps overlap, and supported by judicial precedent limiting collateral revision.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Interest on delayed tax refunds where delay is not attributable to the taxpayer under Section 244A.
    Entitlement to interest under Section 244A arises when refund payment is delayed for reasons not attributable to the assessee. The petitioner, a foreign company, faced delays caused by technical issues and incorrect guidance regarding banking details; the court treated the delay as the respondents' responsibility and applied Section 244A to award interest for the period of delay, directing payment according to the statutory rate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revision application under Section 264: remand for fresh merits review when alternative remedies were improperly relied upon.
    Whether a revision under Section 264 may be denied solely because alternative remedies existed and whether appeal provisions applied to DDT-related treaty claims; the court found that rejecting revision on the mere availability of other remedies was untenable and that the appealed provision was inapplicable, directing fresh merits consideration of treaty relief and related tax computation by the Principal Commissioner.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    DTAA interpretation clarifies capital gains tax treatment for cross-border share sales under residency and grandfathering conditions.
    Taxation of capital gains from a Mauritius-based entity's sale of Indian company shares is analysed against the India-Mauritius Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement, focusing on DTAA allocation of taxing rights, timing of acquisition and transfer, and applicability of grandfathering provisions. The Tribunal assessed tax residency and treaty entitlement by examining corporate structure and commercial substance, applying the substance over form principle to determine whether treaty benefits were appropriate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Fiduciary funds not treated as taxable income when entity acts as facilitator; earmarked project funds excluded from income.
    The Tribunal examined whether earmarked receipts should be included in taxable income or treated on the balance sheet, focusing on jurisdictional validity of scrutiny notices, whether amounts were routed through the income and expenditure account or retained as earmarked funds, and whether receipts held in a fiduciary capacity for disaster relief were excluded from the entity's income because the entity acted only as facilitator without beneficial ownership.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    ESOP deduction in revised returns - tribunal permits claim within revision window, stressing valuation, timing and documentary consistency.
    Deductibility of ESOP-related costs in a revised return hinges on compliance with the statutory time limit for revision and on accounting and evidentiary consistency: correct year of recognition, reliable grant date valuation (e.g., Black Scholes), concordant employee records, and disclosure in audited accounts. The tribunal found the claim allowable within the revision window but emphasised documentary proof, valuation method and timing of liability as central to acceptability.

    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