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 200 "Tax on income of certain 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 200 Tax on income of certain domestic companies.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Clause 200 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - (Old Version) sets out an optional concessional tax regime: a 22% tax rate for a domestic company that forgoes certain deductions and carry-forwards. It matters to domestic companies considering the lower rate, tax authorities enforcing compliance, and industries with material items excluded by the clause (e.g., capital gain or certain Chapter VIII deductions). Effective date or decision date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      The clause situates itself within the Income Tax Bill, 2025 and creates an elective new tax regime at a flat rate of 22% for domestic companies, subject to specified Parts of the Bill (Parts A, B and this Part) and excluding applicability to companies covered by sections 199 and 201. Definitions of terms used in this clause are Not stated in the document beyond the express cross-references to other sections (e.g., sections 45, 47, 116, 146, 205). The clause also addresses carry-forward and deemed deductions, and contains special provision for Units in International Financial Services Centres (IFSCs).

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Coverage: The clause applies to a person being a domestic company that elects the regime. It prescribes that the income-tax for a tax year shall be at the rate of 22% if the domestic company opts in. The taxable total income must be computed subject to several restrictions:

      • No deduction under specified provisions: (a)(i) sections 45(2)(c) and 47(1)(b) in the Bill; (a)(ii) Chapter VIII except section 146; (a)(iii) sections specified in section 205(1)(a)-(g).
      • No set-off of carry-forward losses or depreciation from earlier years if such items are attributable to the deductions excluded under clause (a).
      • No set-off of loss or allowance for unabsorbed depreciation deemed u/s 116(1) where attributable to deductions in clause (a).
      • Option mechanics: the option must be exercised in a prescribed manner on or before the due date specified u/s 263(1) for filing the return; once exercised it applies to subsequent years and is irrevocable for that or other tax years.
      • IFSC Units: in case of a person having an IFSC Unit that exercises the option under sub-section (5), the requirements under sub-section (1) shall be modified so that the deduction under the said section (section 147 in later Act) shall be available subject to its conditions.

      Interpretation

      The clause indicates a legislative intent to create a trade-off: a lower flat rate (22%) in exchange for foregoing a specified set of deductions and certain carry-forward benefits-thereby broadening the tax base for opted companies. The text uses negative delineation (list of exclusions) rather than a positive list of allowed deductions. Interpretive principles indicated by the text: strict compliance with the timing and manner of option; causation for carry-forward restrictions (only losses attributable to excluded deductions are barred from set-off); permanence of the election once made (no subsequent withdrawal).

      Exceptions/Provisos

      The clause contains carve-outs: certain provisions under Chapter VIII (section 146) remain available despite the opting requirement. For IFSC Units, a modification ensures specific deductions (referred to elsewhere) remain available subject to that section's conditions. Provisos around invalidation: if the person fails to satisfy the requirements in any tax year, the option becomes invalid for that and subsequent years.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A domestic company with a capital gain covered by section 45(2)(c) that wishes to adopt the 22% rate must forgo the deduction under that sub-section; therefore its taxable income will include that gain without the deduction-resulting in tax at 22% on a higher base. (Details of amounts Not stated in the document.)

      • Example 2: A domestic company has an unabsorbed depreciation carry-forward attributable to a deduction excluded under clause (a); upon opting, it cannot set off that depreciation in the opted regime-and the loss/depreciation shall be deemed to have been given full effect (i.e., extinguished for future years under sub-section (3)). Specific numeric treatment Not stated in the document.

      Interplay

      The clause expressly cross-references multiple other provisions (sections 45, 47, 116, 146, 147 in the Act, 205, 263). The text implies that the provisions of Parts A, B and this Part govern other aspects. Specific interactions with Rules, Notifications or Circulars are Not stated in the document.

      Differences between Section 200 of the Income-tax Act, 2025 and Clause 200 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 - (Old Version)

      • Textual differences in cross-references to other provisions: The Act version (Document 1) refers to "subject to the provisions of Parts A, B, E and this Part (other than sections 199 and 201) of this Chapter," whereas the Bill old version (Document 2) refers only to "Parts A, B and this Part, other than sections 199 and 201."
        • Practical impact: the Act expands the stated applicability by expressly adding "Part E" into the list of Parts that remain applicable. This could bring additional provisions in Part E into play for companies exercising the option; taxpayers and advisers must therefore check Part E for relevant constraints or qualifications that were not explicitly captured in the Bill text.
      • Differences in specific clause wording regarding deductions: Sub-clause (a)(i) in the Act omits the parenthetical "(c)" found in the Bill: the Bill lists "sections 45(2)(c) and 47(1)(b);" the Act lists "section 45(2) or 47(1)(b)."
        • Practical impact: the Act's broader reference to section 45(2) (without specifying sub-clause (c)) may expand or at least alter the scope of the deduction(s) excluded when opting for the 22% regime. The practical consequence is potential ambiguity: taxpayers must review section 45(2) as a whole to determine which components are excluded, whereas under the Bill the exclusion was expressly directed to 45(2)(c) only.
      • Chapter VIII reference differences: The Bill excludes Chapter VIII "other than the provisions of section 146"; the Act excludes Chapter VIII "other than provisions of section 146 or 148."
        • Practical impact: the Act adds an express carve-out for section 148 (so deductions or rules u/s 148 remain available even when opting for 22%). This change restores or preserves some benefit (or procedural rule) u/s 148 for opting companies that would have been unavailable under the Bill's narrower exception. Practically, companies that rely on section 148 will find the Act more favorable.
      • References to section 116 technicality: The Bill's sub-clause (c) references "section 116(1)" and the Act references "section 116" (no subsection).
        • Practical impact: omission of the subsection may broaden or leave open application to other parts of section 116; advisers must check the full section to confirm the intended scope. This could affect the set-off of deemed losses or unabsorbed depreciation and therefore the effective taxable base for an opting company.
      • Minor drafting and grammatical changes: Sub-section (4) in the Bill uses the phrase "the deduction under the said section shall be available"; the Act specifies "the deduction as referred to in section 147 shall be available."
        • Practical impact: the Act is more explicit in cross-referencing section 147. While this is clarificatory, it reduces uncertainty about which deduction is intended for IFSC Units.
      • Prescriptive/formatting differences in subsection (5): The Bill reads "in the such manner as prescribed"; the Act reads "in such manner as may be prescribed."
        • Practical impact: the Act's phrasing aligns with standard legislative drafting and avoids odd grammar; it retains the same substantive requirement that the option be exercised in a prescribed manner by the due date u/s 263(1).

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Taxpayers must carefully assess whether particular deductions or earlier-year losses are "attributable" to excluded deductions-this causal nexus will determine loss set-off rights and risk of option invalidation. The irrevocability of the option intensifies compliance risk: an improper election or failure to meet requirements in any year results in invalidation for that and subsequent years.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: Companies should maintain contemporaneous documentation demonstrating the origin of carried-forward losses and depreciation (and linkages showing whether they are attributable to excluded deductions). Proof of timely and prescribed exercise of the option (filing evidence) and compliance with conditions in the IFSC context should be kept. Specific documentary lists or periods are Not stated in the document.

      Key Takeaways

      • The Bill creates an optional 22% flat tax regime for domestic companies that forgo specified deductions and certain loss set-offs.
      • The election is subject to Parts A, B and this Part and excludes applicability to companies u/ss 199 and 201.
      • Opting requires strict compliance with prescribed manner and timing; once made it is irrevocable and applies to subsequent years.
      • Losses or depreciation attributable to excluded deductions cannot be set off and are deemed to have been given full effect (i.e., not available later).
      • IFSC Units have a limited modification to preserve a specific deduction (cross-referenced) subject to conditions.
      • Key drafting differences in the later Act broaden certain cross-references (e.g., Part E; section 45(2) without sub-clause; retention of section 148), which may alter practical tax outcomes compared with the Bill.

      Full Text:

      Section 200 Tax on income of certain domestic companies.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax