Loading...

⚠ ✕
❮ 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 characters 0/2000
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 ✕
🔎 Filters / Advanced Search ❯
TEXT

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.
Relevance Default Date
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Retrospective Amendments and the Doctrine of Vested Rights: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Upholding Equality: HC Strikes Down Discriminatory Circular on Charitable Trust Approvals
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Judicial Review of Income Tax Settlement Commission (ITSC) Orders: Navigating the Boundaries
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Assessee's Lackadaisical Conduct Leads to Dismissal of Income Tax Appeal
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Faceless Appeal Scheme: Lessons from the Judgement on Delayed Filing and Deduction u/...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Unraveling the Maze of Round-Tripping: The Doctrine of "Source of Source" in Share Capital Transacti...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Upholding the Transfer of Assessment Proceedings u/s 127: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Share Premium Addition u/s 68: Demystifying Share Premium Transactions
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Intricacies of Income Tax Penalty u/s 271(1)(c): Fairness in Tax Administration
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Scope and Limitations under Income Tax Act
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Navigating the Complexities of Search and Seizure Assessments: Unraveling the Intricacies of Section...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interpreting Section 80G Provisions: ITAT's Stance on Charitable Institution Registration
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Interpreting the Scope and Limits of Sections 153A and 153C: A Judicial Perspective
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Section 153C and the Necessity of AO's Satisfaction: A Detailed Judicial Analysis
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Royalty or Business Income? High Court Clarifies Taxation of Remittances against Software Purchase
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Reassessment Proceedings: Navigating the Complexities
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Faceless Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment: Validity of Notice Issued by the Jurisdictional A...
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Court Upholds Deduction for Operational Hotel under Section 35AD Despite Administrative Delays
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Landmark Ruling: Leasing Businesses Entitled to Depreciation Benefits
    Case Laws Income Tax
    Court Decision on Convertible Debentures Expenses : Revenue or Capital Expenditure?
❮
❯
❯❯
Maximize Maximize Maximize
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 Summaries Hide All Summaries
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Vested rights preserved against retrospective tax amendments; filings made before enactment remain effective for settlement consideration.
The court addressed whether a retrospective Finance Act amendment prohibiting settlement applications from a specified date could divest a taxpayer who filed earlier of its vested right to have the application considered. It held that retrospective legislation cannot take away rights already accrued by actions completed before enactment unless clearly intended; that section 119 confers time-extension power but cannot impose new substantive eligibility conditions; and that administrative delay by revenue does not justify denying access where an application was already filed.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Reasonable classification principle: differential deadline for charitable trust tax recognition cannot lack rational basis or equality protection.
A departmental circular extended a filing deadline for tax recognition to mitigate hardship but excluded newly formed charitable trusts without offering reasons; the exclusion lacked an intelligible differentia and rational nexus to the circular's object, making the differential treatment arbitrary and ultra vires the constitutional guarantee of equality, requiring the excluded applications to be treated as within time and decided on merits.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
ITSC jurisdiction extends beyond application disclosures, while full and true disclosure and narrow judicial review govern settlement oversight.
The Income Tax Settlement Commission may inquire into and decide issues disclosed in the application and any other matters relating to the case as reflected in the Commissioner's report or uncovered by further inquiry; full and true disclosure is mandatory and amendments or contradictory positions that undermine that requirement are impermissible, yet contesting taxability before the Commission does not automatically negate disclosure; judicial review is limited to statutory contravention, prejudice, fraud, bias or malice, while sufficiency of materials placed before the Commission is generally beyond routine court scrutiny.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Delay condonation denied where litigant's evasive conduct and non participation failed to constitute sufficient cause for appeal filing.
The court refused condonation of delay for filing an appeal where a best judgment assessment treated cash bank deposits as unexplained after the assessee failed to file returns or participate in proceedings; reliance on transition to a faceless e filing regime and lack of alerts was held insufficient, as the assessee's evasive and habitual non participation did not amount to sufficient cause warranting condonation under the applicable doctrine.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Sufficient cause for delay in filing appeals rejected where faceless scheme migration did not excuse prolonged inaction.
The court held that migration to a faceless appeal system did not, without persuasive evidence, constitute sufficient cause to condone a lengthy delay in filing an appeal, finding the explanation reflective of litigant inaction rather than unavoidable impediment. On tax deduction, the court applied authority that a non-obstante clause does not negate the employer's obligation to deposit employees' statutory contributions by the due date as a condition for claiming the deduction, and treated the appeal as meritless and barred by limitation.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Source of source doctrine used to pierce the corporate veil where share capital appears round tripped among related entities.
The assessee must prove identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of investors under section 68; examination extends to the true origin of funds where bank records show circular transfers, related party directorships, lack of business operations, and arbitrary share premium, permitting lifting the corporate veil and application of the source of source doctrine to treat such receipts as not satisfactorily explained.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Transfer of assessment proceedings for coordinated investigations and administrative convenience upheld where procedural safeguards and factual links exist.
The judgment explains that transfers of assessment proceedings pursuant to the statutory transfer power may be justified for coordinated enquiries and administrative convenience, provided the decision is not capricious or mala fide. Authorities must afford an opportunity to be heard and consider objections; where factual indicia exist - for example, disclosed transactions such as unsecured loans with searched persons - centralisation can be sustained. The convenience of the assessee is relevant but subservient to effective adjudication and tax collection, and transfers supported by procedural compliance and factual nexus are not arbitrary.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Burden of proof in share premium cases: failure to prove investor identity and genuineness sustains addition under section 68.
The assessment of share premium under section 68 requires the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of investors who subscribe at a premium. The court scrutinised disparate allotments made on consecutive days, examined subscribing companies' financials, and applied the doctrine of "source of source" restrictively, holding that incorporation papers or bank payments alone do not discharge the burden. Absent cogent evidence tracing funds to lawful origin and demonstrating commercial rationale for large premiums, additions under section 68 are supportable.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Strict construction of penalty provisions prevents penalty where taxpayer disclosed omitted income before assessment notice.
The legal focal point is whether Section 271(1)(c) can be invoked where an assessee disclosed omitted income and paid differential tax before initiation of reassessment. Penal provisions require strict construction, and Explanation 1 treats a pre-notice satisfactory explanation and admission of additional income as accepted, precluding characterization as concealment. Additionally, a penalty notice must specify the particular ground for proceeding; failure to do so renders the notice defective and undermines the basis for penalty.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Scope of reassessment: AO may address newly noticed income but remains constrained by the recorded reasons for reopening.
Where the AO has recorded reasons to believe income escaped assessment, the AO may assess or reassess issues that come to notice during reassessment, but if no additions or modifications are ultimately made in respect of the issues that formed the basis for reopening, the AO cannot make additions or modifications relating solely to other matters that were part of the original assessment. Explanation 3 applies only after reassessment power is validly invoked and cannot be used to deviate from or supplant the recorded reasons.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Corroboration requirement for search statements: unsupported search statements cannot sustain additions without linked incriminating material and fair cross examination.
Additions for alleged accommodation entries cannot rest solely on statements recorded during search operations; such statements require corroboration by material found in the search that is specifically linked to the assessee. The assessing officer must articulate a factual nexus between seized group material and the assessee, and procedural fairness-including provision of relevant statements and opportunity for cross-examination-is essential. Cure provisions do not validate jurisdictional defects arising from absence of requisite notice or lack of incriminating material.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Registration under Section 80G: provisional approval permits subsequent final registration regardless of prior commencement of activities.
The Tribunal held that institutions granted provisional approval under the First Proviso to Section 80G(5) are entitled to apply for final registration under the proviso's final-registration clause, and that the relevant date of commencement is to be counted from activities undertaken after grant of provisional registration; a prior commencement of activities before provisional grant cannot alone justify rejection of a final-approval application.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Search assessment provisions under Sections 153A and 153C override ordinary reassessment time limits; asset-threshold verification required.
The judgment holds that search-triggered assessment provisions function as non-obstante clauses displacing ordinary reassessment time limits, distinguishes the enduring liability to tax from the temporal right to assess, prescribes that block periods are computed from the year of search (or date of receipt of seized records for non-searched persons), and treats the asset-represented income threshold as a mandatory, aggregable precondition requiring the assessing officer's recorded satisfaction.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Seized-material nexus under Section 153C: AO must form reasoned satisfaction before reopening assessments for specific years.
Section 153C requires the Assessing Officer to form a reasoned satisfaction that seized material during a search has a bearing on an assessee's total income before initiating assessments; mere discovery is insufficient, and the AO must identify specific assessment years, map incriminating material year-wise, and record reasons to justify abatement or reopening.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Royalty classification of software payments: remittances for software purchases are not treated as royalty under established precedent.
Where distribution agreements or End User License Agreements do not grant any proprietary interest or a right to use copyright, payments for acquiring computer software are not to be characterised as royalty; this conclusion follows controlling precedent and DTAA considerations and renders an Assessing Officer's contrary classification inconsistent with the correct legal interpretation.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Reopening assessments: procedural compliance and substantive escapement requirements determine validity of reassessment notices.
The judgment examines validity of notices under Section 148, holding that TOLA does not apply retrospectively for the assessment year at issue and notices issued after the statutory cutoff cannot be back-dated. Notices barred by the limitation in Section 149(1) are ineffective. Procedural prerequisites - notably issuance of a Document Identification Number and issuance through automated allocation by the faceless centre rather than direct action by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer - are mandatory. Substantively, reopening requires escapement of income in the form of an asset, expenditure, transaction, event, or book entry; a mere change of opinion or dispute over an ordinarily allowed deduction does not meet that threshold.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Faceless assessment: issuance of section 148 reopening notices by jurisdictional assessing officers inconsistent with faceless regime.
The faceless assessment framework under Section 151A and the Scheme dated 29 March 2022 allocates exclusive jurisdiction to either the Faceless Assessment Officer or the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for issuance of reopening notices and assessments; actions by an authority outside its assigned jurisdiction are inconsistent with the faceless regime and cause prejudice to the taxpayer as a matter of law.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Deduction eligibility for operational hotels affirmed despite administrative delay in star classification, focusing on substantive compliance.
The court addressed entitlement to a deduction under Section 35AD(5)(aa) where a hotel began operations and generated income in the relevant year and a timely application for star classification was submitted, but formal certification was delayed due to administrative inspections; the court applied a purposive construction to allow the deduction when substantive operational conditions were satisfied and delay was not the assessee's fault.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Depreciation entitlement for leasing companies where contractual ownership and business use are established, allowing higher depreciation rates.
A lessor retains entitlement to depreciation where lease terms demonstrate exclusive ownership rights, repossession power, return obligations and inspection rights, and where the asset is used in the course of the lessor's leasing business; actual physical use by the lessor is not required. Leasing activity that functionally equates to hiring can qualify assets for an enhanced rate of depreciation despite registration in the lessee's name.
Case Laws Income Tax
Show AI Summary
Revenue classification of debenture issuance expenses upheld as revenue expenditure despite later conversion into equity.
Expenses incurred to issue convertible debentures that are raised to provide working capital are to be treated as revenue expenditure because classification depends on the purpose and usage of the expenditure, and future conversion into shares does not change its revenue character.

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

Showing Results for :
Reset Filters
No Records Found

TMI Notes

Back

All TMI Notes

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

Acts Income Tax