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
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
    Maximum Marginal Rate and Surcharge for Discretionary Trusts: ITAT Special Bench Clarifies Slab-Base...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Classification of Quicklime under the Customs Tariff: CESTAT Bangalore's Reaffirmation of HSN-Based ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Validity of Reassessment Notices Post-Ashish Agarwal and TOLA: Limitation and Sanction u/ss 149 and ...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Seizure, Provisional Release and Limitation: Supreme Court on the Interplay of Sections 110(2), 110A...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Prima Facie Adjustments v. Substantive Adjudication: Procedural Boundaries in Return Processing (CPC...
    Survey, Unaccounted Stock (Eye-Estimates) and the Limits of Section 130: Statutory Primacy of Sectio...
    Input Tax Credit Abuse (ITC Fraud) and Judicial Review: Delhi High Court on Natural Justice, RUDs an...
    Writ Jurisdiction and Statutory Appeal in GST Fraud Investigations: A Judicial Re-affirmation
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) Post-Amendment, Accumulated Income and the Sixth Year: Legal Interpretation, Procedura...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Form No.10B & Section 119(2)(b): Condonation of Delay in Tax Exemption Claims: Principles, Precedent...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Regulatory Ambit of Import of Second-Hand Electronic Capital Goods: Classification, Exemption and Pr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 195, DTAAs and Software Licences: A Practical Framework for Withholding Tax
    Provisional Attachment under GST: Draconian Powers, Statutory Time-Bars and the Rule of Law: Interpr...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 263 Revisited: Jurisdictional Boundaries Where AO Takes a Plausible View on 80G Claims
    Case LawsCustoms
    Provisional Release in Customs Law: Balancing Revenue Protection and Commercial Fairness - A Compara...
    Case LawsCustoms
    Conditional Re-export and Revenue Safeguards: Judicially Crafted Remedies in Customs Adjudication
    GST Limitation Regime vs Executive Notifications: Judicial Review of Time-Limit Notifications under ...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Section 11(3) After Finance Act, 2022: Utilization of Accumulated Income - Deemed Income, Vesting an...
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    When Can an ITAT Reopen a Decision? Distinguishing Prior Binding Precedent from Subsequent Case-Law
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Faceless Assessment and Jurisdiction: Reconciling JAO Roles with NFAC u/ss 144B & 151A (JAO / FAO)
❯❯
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
    Discretionary trusts taxed at maximum marginal rate must have surcharge computed under slab and threshold rules, not automatically at top rate.
    For private discretionary trusts taxed at the maximum marginal rate under sections 164/167B, the term denotes the highest basic slab rate under the Finance Act, but surcharge on that tax must be computed according to the Finance Act's slab- and threshold-based surcharge provisions; if the trust's total income does not cross the statutory surcharge threshold, no surcharge is leviable despite basic tax being at the top slab rate.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Quicklime classification: impure lime falls under specific tariff heading, not high purity calcium oxide, per HSN purity standard.
    The imported material, chemically tested as impure calcium oxide (about 92.2% CaO with mineral impurities), is classifiable under Heading 2522 10 00 as Quicklime. Chapter Note 1 to Chapter 25 must be read contextually and does not disqualify quicklime from Chapter 25 where the tariff text and HSN Explanatory Notes expressly contemplate calcined quicklime. Heading 2825 is confined to chemically pure calcium oxide (approximately 98% CaO) and its residuary sub-heading cannot displace the specific Heading 2522 unless that purity threshold and absence of impurities are met.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Reassessment notices: surviving-time computation under COVID-era relief and new limitation rules renders late notices time-barred.
    The court held that in transitional reassessment cases the appropriate sanctioning authority is determined by when the original three-year expiry fell within the COVID-era relief window, so approval by the ordinarily specified authority for within-three-year cases suffices; limitation is governed by a two-step surviving-time computation measured from the original notice as of the relief-window terminal date, excluding stayed periods and the time allowed to reply, and any later notice issued beyond that surviving time is time-barred under the substituted limitation regime read with the time-relief statute and the legal-fiction continuity.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Seizure of goods: six month statutory limit for issuing show cause notice is mandatory despite provisional release.
    The six month limit in Section 110(2) for issuing a show cause notice after seizure under Section 110(1) is mandatory; only a single six month extension under the first proviso is permissible. Provisional release under Section 110A does not suspend, extend or neutralise that time bar. The 2018 second proviso making the six month rule inapplicable where provisional release is ordered is a substantive change and does not validate pre amendment seizures prolonged without notice.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Prima facie adjustments cannot decide debatable legal claims in return processing; contested deductions require scrutiny procedures.
    When a claimed deduction depends on timely deposit of employee welfare contributions and the legal question is debatable or pending higher adjudication, summary processing adjustments cannot be used to resolve the dispute; such matters require scrutiny or reassessment procedures and the validity of any processing-stage action must be judged by the law and facts existing at the time of processing.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Survey discovered unaccounted stock must be assessed under sections 35(6) and 73/74, not via section 130.
    Tax liability for unaccounted goods found in a survey must be determined under section 35(6) read with sections 73/74 of the GST Act; section 130 cannot be used to quantify tax or levy penalty in such cases. The statutory cross reference to sections 73/74 requires adherence to their procedural safeguards, and quantification based solely on eye estimates during survey is insufficient without proper weighment or verification.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Input Tax Credit fraud: writ relief limited where appeals exist; hearings and raw RUDs generally suffice absent prejudice.
    The High Court held that writ jurisdiction must be exercised with restraint in complex ITC fraud matters appealable under Section 107; at least one personal hearing and provision of RUDs as collected by the Department generally suffice absent demonstrable prejudice; detailed allocation of penal liability under Sections 73/74/75(13)/122 requires adjudicatory or appellate factfinding and cannot be resolved in writ proceedings.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Writ jurisdiction limited where statutory appeal exists for fact intensive GST fraud investigations; appellate forum preferred for evidentiary disputes.
    The High Court reaffirmed that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is generally inappropriate where a statutory appeal exists for fact intensive GST investigations alleging fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit through fake invoices. Courts should confine review to jurisdictional defects or breaches of natural justice; detailed evidentiary disputes involving voluminous Relied Upon Documents, recorded statements and transaction chains are better resolved by the specialised appellate forum, which should hear appeals on merits and avoid dismissing on limitation grounds where appropriate.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Prospectivity of tax amendments: changes to accumulation rules apply from their effective date, not to prior accruals.
    Interpretation of section 11(3) concludes that, under the pre-amendment text, accumulated charitable funds could be applied in the year immediately following the five-year accumulation period; the 2022/2023 amendment removing that year was treated as prospective under the presumption against retrospective tax imposition. Separately, corrections by the Centralised Processing Centre under section 143(1) are confined to mechanistic errors and should not resolve debatable substantive questions of statutory interpretation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Condonation of delay in tax exemption claims should favor substantive rights over mere technical filing defects when bona fide.
    Equitable application of the Condonation Power requires authorities to admit late Form No.10B filings when short delays or credible explanations would otherwise strip claimants of substantive exemption rights; procedural defects such as digital-signature technicalities must be tested against documentary e-filing evidence and substantial compliance, while administrative safeguards permit subsequent verification of the audit report.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Imported second hand MFDs meeting HSE technical criteria can be exempt from BIS registration and obtain conditional provisional release.
    Where importers produce prima facie evidence that imported second hand MFDs meet the Highly Specialized Equipment (HSE) criteria (limited units per model and physical thresholds such as weight >80 kg), those devices are exempt from compulsory BIS registration under the CRO and fall within the FTP residuary category for second hand capital goods; accordingly, provisional release may be granted on conditions (bond/guarantee and document verification) without prejudice to final adjudication.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Royalty characterisation for software determines withholding-non exclusive copies/licenses generally not subject to TDS unless income is chargeable.
    Payments for off the shelf/shrink wrapped software or hardware embedded software that constitute a resale of a copyrighted article or a grant of a non exclusive, restricted licence for internal use do not ordinarily constitute royalty under section 9(1)(vi) or typical DTAA provisions; withholding under section 195 arises only where the non resident's receipts are chargeable to tax in India (e.g., due to a PE or transfer of substantive copyright rights), and retrospective domestic amendments cannot be used to impose past withholding obligations on payors who lacked notice of the expanded definition.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional attachment limits: fixed statutory expiry prevents re-issuance of lapsed attachment orders on same property.
    A provisional attachment under the CGST scheme automatically ceases on expiry of the statutory time limit; once it has lapsed by operation of law, tax authorities have no power to re issue or renew a fresh provisional attachment over the same property on substantially the same grounds, and any such fresh order is void. Procedural rules or executive instructions cannot be used to circumvent this statutory safeguard and must be aligned with the primary legislation.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Revisional jurisdiction cannot overturn a plausible assessment on charitable deductions where donation conditions are met.
    Tribunals held that Explanation 2 limiting CSR expenditure as a business deduction operates within the business income chapter and does not ipso facto bar claims under the donations regime; specific statutory exceptions indicate Parliament's choice to restrict only certain items. A mandatory CSR outlay does not automatically negate donation character where there is no material return, provided donee approval and documentary evidence are established. On revisional power, section 263 cannot be invoked to overturn an assessing officer's tenable, precedent backed view where enquiries were made; revision is justified only if the AO's conclusion is legally untenable or there was no inquiry.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Provisional release of seized imports permitted subject to proportionate security, favouring bonds over bank guarantees before adjudication.
    Provisional release under Section 110 is permitted subject to proportionate protections: payment of duties as self-assessed; payment of a substantive portion (commonly fifty percent) of any departmental differential; and execution of enforceable bonds for the balance. Bank guarantees or cash security for speculative fines prior to adjudication are often disproportionate and may be replaced by bonds, though deliberate mis-declaration, concealment or prohibited imports justify stricter protective measures.
    Case LawsCustoms
    Show AI Summary
    Conditional re-export of detained imports permitted when revenue is secured by enforceable financial guarantees and timelines.
    Courts may permit re-export of detained imports where the anticipated departmental remedy is monetary, provided the importer furnishes enforceable financial safeguards-typically a bond quantifying revenue exposure and a bank guarantee for a calibrated portion of the redetermined value-and complies with prescribed timelines; such orders are without prejudice to the Department's right to complete investigations, adjudicate, assess differential duties, and impose penalties.
    Case LawsGST
    Show AI Summary
    Force majeure causation in GST limitation: proximate cause and mandatory council recommendation govern valid time limit extensions.
    Section 168A empowers executive modification of GST limitation periods but operates as delegated legislation subject to strict construction: valid exercise requires (i) a qualifying force majeure event, (ii) inability to complete prescribed actions, and (iii) proximate causation by that event; GST Council recommendation is a mandatory precondition and GIC substitution or post-facto ratification does not cure statutory defect.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Accumulated trust income: Tribunal rulings treat the 2022 amendment as prospective, preserving the prior six year utilisation window.
    Two Tribunal benches held that the Finance Act, 2022 amendment to the accumulation provision is prospective; accumulations made before 1 April 2022 remain governed by the prior law including the additional one year grace, and utilisation within that six year window cannot be taxed for AY 2023 24. The Tribunals relied on the presumption against retrospectivity, the Finance Bill memorandum stating an effective date of 1 April 2023, and fairness doctrines to conclude Parliament did not intend to curtail vested rights retroactively.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Tribunal recall power limited: later judicial overruling alone cannot reopen finalized tax orders under review rules.
    The tribunal's power to amend is limited to rectifying a mistake apparent from the record existing at the time of the original order or to taking into account contemporaneous binding precedent not placed before it; a subsequent overruling or clarification by a superior court cannot alone justify recall, in light of the explanatory bar in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC and related authorities.
    Case LawsIncome Tax
    Show AI Summary
    Concurrent jurisdiction between JAO and faceless authorities affirmed; JAO may initiate reassessment followed by faceless assessment.
    The faceless scheme and RMS produce information that may be surfaced to the JAO, permitting the JAO to conduct the pre-notice inquiry and form satisfaction to issue a notice initiating reassessment; thereafter records may be transmitted for faceless assessment via automated allocation, embodying a two-stage model that preserves both JAO initiation authority and central faceless assessment.

    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