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
    Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS to the Government
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    A Landmark Judgment on Tax Credit Entitlement - Credit of TDS if deductor failed to deposit the TDS ...
    A Case of Coerced Input Tax Credit Reversal - GST recovery during search and seizure proceedings.
    Manner of compliance of conditions of pre-deposit - Debit of amount from electronic credit ledger (E...
    The need for clarity and concrete reasons in the cancellation of GST registrations.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of reopening of assessment - need for a direct link between the portal's information and th...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Application of provisions of section 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional release of imported goods (apples) - The dispute centers on the valuation of the import...
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Applicability of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of expenses - need for tax authorities to have a practical understanding of the nature ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Disallowance of the assessee's business expenditure claims related to the purchase of sugarcane from...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Additions made u/s 69 and Section 56 in the absence of direct incriminating evidence linking the ass...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Whether penalty is to be imposed when the appellant has accepted the classification and paid the ent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Liability for payment of customs duty on sale of excess liquor from the duty-free shop
    Case LawsCustoms
    Demand of customs duty beyond normal period of limitation on the ground of change in classification ...
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Stringent approach towards ensuring compliance with auditing standards - importance of auditors' res...
    Whether the appellant's claim can be classified as a Financial Debt or Operational Debt under the In...
    Scope of Approval of resolution plan - Allegations of undervaluation of the Corporate Debtor's asset...
    Denial of Input Tax Credit since the GST registration of the Supplier of Goods has been Cancelled wi...
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) is a vested right or concession - Can government impose conditions or restric...
❯❯
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
    TDS credit entitlement affirmed: deductee entitled to credit despite deductor's non-deposit, preventing indirect recovery.
    Credit for tax deducted at source on interest payments is to be treated as tax paid on the deductee's behalf and does not depend on the deductor's remittance; statutory protections against indirect recovery prevent the revenue from seeking the same tax from the deductee when the deductor fails to deposit the deducted amount, and the deposit requirement in the applicable provisions does not negate the deductee's entitlement to such credit.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tax credit for TDS: deductee entitled to credit even if deductor failed to deposit the retained tax with government.
    The Court treats amounts retained by a deductor as remaining tax and concludes the statutory credit mechanism for tax deducted at source does not condition a deductee's entitlement on the deductor having deposited the retained amount with the government, thereby barring indirect recovery or adjustment against the deductee where tax has been deducted at source.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Coercive tax collection prohibited; forced reversal of input tax credit during search deemed impermissible, with investigatory remedies preserved.
    Dispute involved a search under Section 67 and an alleged coerced reversal of Input Tax Credit from the petitioner's Electronic Credit Ledger for supplies from a supplier with retrospectively cancelled registration; the court found such coercive recovery during search impermissible and directed restoration of the ITC while preserving the department's power to investigate and, if ineligible or fraudulent ITC is found, pass appropriate protective orders.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Pre-deposit payment method: Electronic credit ledger debit does not satisfy pre-deposit; cash ledger payment required for appeals.
    Pre-deposit for appeals under the CGST/BGST regime must be paid from the cash ledger; debit from the electronic credit ledger does not satisfy the statutory pre-deposit requirement. A revenue circular restricting ECRL use to certain output tax payments and excluding reverse charge, interest, penalties, fees, and similar amounts supports that ECRL cannot be used for pre-deposit. The court emphasized the statutory payment scheme and strict appeal filing timelines, rejecting arguments that ECRL debit could substitute for cash ledger payment.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Requirement of clear reasons in GST cancellation: retrospective deregistration must be reasoned and consider input tax credit effects.
    Cancellation of GST registration must be supported by clear reasons and concrete factual findings in show cause notices and cancellation orders; labels that a registration is "liable to be cancelled" without specifying dues or factual basis constitute mechanical action. Retrospective cancellation cannot be applied routinely; authorities must follow statutory procedure, assess causes for non-filing, consider exceptional disruptions to business operations, and account for the impact on input tax credit before fixing an effective date of cancellation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Use of portal data: digital information needs a direct evidential link before reopening income tax assessments.
    Reopening assessments requires a direct evidential link between portal-derived information and the income alleged to have escaped assessment; portal data alone is insufficient without documentary support for transactions or gifts, and a show cause notice must provide adequate particulars and reflect proper consideration of the taxpayer's response before reassessment proceeds.
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Show AI Summary
    Non retrospective application of punitive benami provisions affirmed, limiting enforcement to post amendment transactions.
    Application of Section 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 concerns whether punitive provisions enacted in 2016 apply to transactions predating the amendment. The Appellate Tribunal relied on Supreme Court precedent that such punitive provisions must be applied prospectively, and the High Court emphasized adherence to that interpretation while allowing parties to pursue further remedies pending the Supreme Court review.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional release of perishable imports allowed pending valuation, subject to provisional assessment and bond to protect revenue interests.
    The dispute concerns provisional release of perishable imported apples amid a valuation contest tied to a stayed minimum import price notification. The instrument requires provisional assessment of the Bill of Entry within a brief timeframe and permits conditional provisional release upon the importer furnishing a bond and meeting terms set by customs, thereby reconciling the protection of revenue interests with the practical need to avoid loss to perishable consignments pending final resolution of the notification's applicability.
    Case LawsBenami Property
    Show AI Summary
    Prospective application of punitive benami amendment upheld, limiting reach to post-enactment transactions and preserving pre-enactment protections.
    The Madras High Court affirmed that the enhanced punitive provision introduced by the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 is substantive and applies prospectively; it endorsed the Tribunal's reliance on the Supreme Court's Ganapati Dealcom decision, treated a pending Supreme Court review petition as not displacing that precedent, and disposed of the appeals while allowing further proceedings consistent with prospectivity and prior constitutional findings.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Disallowance of expenses must rest on specific documentation defects, not on blanket percentage adjustments.
    Disallowance of business expenses on a summary or estimate basis requires specific, pointed deficiencies and cannot rest on generalized conclusions about excessiveness; in businesses with routine small transactions, tax authorities must examine the nature of operations and identify particular defects in documentation before applying blanket percentage disallowances.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Statutory Minimum Price interpretation: excess cane payments treated as appropriation of profits, not deductible business expense.
    The core issue is whether payments for sugarcane in excess of the Statutory Minimum Price (SMP) are deductible business expenditures or constitute an appropriation of profits. The Assessing Officer relied on standard accounting practice requiring provisions for liabilities at year end and treated post closing excess payments as distributions of operational surplus. The appellate view upheld that cooperative status does not alter the tax analysis and that payments beyond the SMP do not qualify as allowable business expenses absent proper provisioning within the accounting period.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Direct incriminating evidence requirement: third party search materials alone cannot sustain unexplained investment additions.
    Additions alleged as unexplained investments and undisclosed interest income based on third party search materials require a demonstrable direct nexus between those seized records and the assessee; absent such direct incriminating evidence, reliance on third party statements or documents is insufficient. Procedural safeguards and transactional indicia-such as cross examination opportunities, banking records, documentary support, and TDS-reduce the probative value of seized material when direct linkage is lacking.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Penalty under Section 114A: no justification where importer accepted correct classification and paid differential duty before notice.
    Issue: imposition of a penalty for alleged suppression when the importer accepted correct tariff classification and paid the differential duty with interest before issuance of a show cause notice. The importer attributed the earlier misclassification to an agent error and denied intent to evade duty. The authority observed the accurate product description, admission of correct classification and prompt payment, concluded absence of suppression of facts and determined that the statutory penalty provision was not justified on these facts.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Liability under Section 72: duty rests with duty-free shop licence-holder when trade facility conditions are breached.
    Duty arises where a duty-free shop licence-holder breaches voucher and recordkeeping conditions under the trade facility; the licence-holder bears responsibility for payment of duty and interest when procedural requirements are violated, while penalty depends on culpability and may be disallowed where no intent to evade duty is established and customs were aware of the transactions.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Extended limitation in customs demands inapplicable where no suppression, limiting reassessment for CVD on undeclared MRP entries.
    Reassessment and CVD demand arose from a post-clearance change in classification and retrospective reliance on MRP for past entries; the tribunal held that items described were essential refrigeration parts rather than accessories, that MRP-based reassessment requires clear factual basis, and that the Extended Period of Limitation is inapplicable where no suppression is established, although penalty issues may still be considered where omissions occur.
    Case LawsCorporate Laws
    Show AI Summary
    Auditor responsibility reinforced: regulatory findings against audit failures stress strict adherence to auditing standards and sanctions.
    NFRA found a statutory auditor guilty of professional misconduct for failures to comply with Standards on Auditing, including inadequate procedures to verify revenue, lack of physical inventory verification, insufficient going concern assessment, deficient materiality application, and inadequate communication with Those Charged with Governance, and applied regulatory sanctions to reinforce auditor responsibilities in preserving financial reporting integrity.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Operational debt classification confirmed for supplier's claim based on the transaction's nature under the insolvency framework.
    Whether a claim from a supply arrangement is a Financial Debt or an Operational Debt depends on the transaction's substantive character. The tribunal examined contractual terms-penalties for non-delivery, interest, and security cheques-and applied precedents on the financial-versus-operational distinction. It characterised the supplier's claim, filed under Section 9, as arising from the supply of goods and therefore as an operational debt, sustaining the Resolution Professional's and Adjudicating Authority's classification.
    Case LawsIBC
    Show AI Summary
    Commercial wisdom of committee of creditors governs resolution plan approval, limiting valuation and standing challenges by promoters.
    Exclusion of the creditor was non irregular as no claim was filed; undervaluation allegations were rejected since opportunities to raise them during the CIRP were not used; the resolution plan satisfied Committee approval requirements and reflected the Committee's commercial wisdom; and a suspended director/promoter lacked standing to challenge the approved plan, underscoring limited judicial interference post approval.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input tax credit denial over supplier deregistration; remanded for document verification and fresh adjudication to determine genuineness.
    Denial of Input Tax Credit was challenged where the supplier's registration was retrospectively cancelled; the petitioner paid through bank and the supplier appeared on records at the time. The High Court remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, directing the appellate authority to reconsider the petitioner's documentary evidence, hold a hearing, and pass a reasoned order verifying genuineness and timing of transactions; if purchases are genuine and occurred prior to cancellation, ITC is to be considered per precedent.
    Act RulesGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit as legislative concession: entitlement subject to statutory conditions, but retrospective deprivation of vested accruals is vulnerable.
    Input Tax Credit (ITC) is a legislative concession, not a vested right, so the legislature may lawfully prescribe eligibility conditions and procedural limits which taxpayers must strictly satisfy; however, retrospective amendments that destroy or diminish an already accrued entitlement are susceptible to challenge and have been treated as impermissible when they impair rights that vested before the amendment.

    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