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 201 "Tax on income of new manufacturing domestic companies." between the Income-Tax Act, 2025 (as passed) and the Income-Tax Bill, 2025 (as originally introduced)

      4 September, 2025

      Contents
      Acts
      Rules & Regulations
      Summary
      Note

      Note

      -

      Bookmark

      Print

      Print

      Section 201 Tax on income of new manufacturing domestic companies.

      Income-tax Act, 2025

      At a Glance

      Document considered: Clause 201 of the Income Tax Bill, 2025 (Old Version) titled "Tax on income of new manufacturing domestic companies." It provides an elective concessional tax regime for certain newly set-up domestic manufacturing companies and specifies conditions, computation rules and exclusions. Affected parties: domestic companies engaged in manufacture/production and the tax administration. Effective/decision date: Not stated in the document.

      Background & Scope

      The clause is framed as part of an Income Tax Bill, 2025. Statutory hooks referenced within the clause include Parts A, B and this Part of the Chapter (with an express exception for sections 199 and 200), and multiple provisions across the Income-tax enactment (sections 45(2)(c), 47(1)(b), Chapter VIII except sections 146 and 148, section 205(1)(a) to (g), section 116(1), section 205(4), section 205(2), and section 263(1) for due dates). The provision is limited to "a domestic company engaged in business of manufacture or production of any article or thing," and creates an option for such a company to compute income-tax at specified concessional rates subject to enumerated conditions and computation rules set out in sub-sections (2)-(5).

      Statutory Provision Mode

      Text & Scope

      Clause 201 creates an elective special tax computation regime for a domestic company engaged in manufacturing or production of any article or thing. The regime operates "irrespective of anything contained in this Act," but is subject to the provisions of Parts A, B and this Part (other than sections 199 and 200). The Table prescribes four tax treatments: (a) 15% on total income except incomes in clauses (b), (c), (d); (b) 22% (without any deduction or allowance) on income that is neither derived from nor incidental to manufacturing/production and for which no specific rate has been provided separately under this Part; (c) 22% on short-term capital gains from transfer of capital asset on which no depreciation is allowable; (d) 30% on income deemed u/s 205(4). Eligibility is conditional on specified criteria in column D: exercise of the option as per sub-section (2); set-up/registration on or after 1 October 2019; commencement of manufacturing/production on or before 31 March 2024; total income computation as per sub-section (3); and fulfilment of sub-section (5) and section 205(2).

      Interpretation

      The clause expresses a legislative intent to provide an elective concessional tax regime for newly established manufacturing companies, but subject to precise temporal and procedural conditions. The "irrespective of anything contained in this Act" opening indicates a stand-alone/comprehensive computation model, constrained only by specified Parts and sections. The requirement that certain incomes be taxed at fixed percentage rates, and the prohibition in clause (b) on any deduction or allowance for the 22% category, indicate an intent to simplify/compress the tax base for qualifying incomes. The option mechanism and the non-withdrawable nature (sub-section (2)(c)) suggest a durable election once validly made.

      Exceptions/Provisos

      Key carve-outs and conditions include:

      • Temporal eligibility: set-up and registration on or after 1 October 2019; commencement of manufacturing/production on or before 31 March 2024.
      • Computation constraints under sub-section (3): exclusions from deductions (specified sections) and prohibition on set-off of certain losses/unabsorbed depreciation per section 116(1) where attributable to excluded deductions.
      • Option mechanics: must be exercised on or before the due date specified u/s 263(1) for furnishing the first return for any tax year; once exercised, it applies to subsequent years and cannot be later withdrawn.
      • Invalidation: failure to fulfil eligibility conditions in any tax year causes invalidation of the option for that year and subsequent years, with application of other Act provisions as if the option had not been exercised.
      • Amalgamation rule: option survives only for the amalgamated company if the conditions in sub-section (1) continue to be satisfied by that company.

      Illustrations

      • Example 1: A domestic company established on 15 November 2019 that commenced commercial manufacturing on 10 March 2024 and validly exercises the option by the specified due date will compute its manufacturing income at 15% and, if it has non-manufacturing income not covered by specific rates under this Part, such income will be taxed at 22% without deductions, pursuant to the Table. (Facts not beyond the text.)
      • Example 2: If a qualifying company derives short-term capital gains on a capital asset on which no depreciation is allowable under the Act, such gains will be taxed at 22% as per clause (c). (Directly from the text.)

      Interplay

      The clause expressly interacts with multiple other sections and Parts: it disapplies general provisions except as noted and requires computation "as per the provisions of sub-section (3)" which cross-references sections 45(2)(c), 47(1)(b), Chapters and specified parts of section 205, and section 116(1). It also refers to section 205(4) for deemed income at the 30% rate and to section 205(2) in eligibility. The option exercise due date is linked to section 263(1). The Bill itself does not include other notifications, rules or circulars; if any such instruments exist, they are Not stated in the document.

      Differences between the two provided provisions and Practical Impact

      Comparison of the two documents (Section 201 - final statute as shown at Document 1, and Clause 201 - Bill old version at Document 2) reveals the following textual differences and their practical impact strictly as can be derived from the text:

      • Reference to Parts of the Chapter: The Bill (Document 2) refers to "Parts A, B and this Part" while the later version (Document 1) refers to "Parts A, B, E and this Part."
        • Practical impact: The inclusion of Part E in the later text expands the corpus of provisions under which specific rates of tax may be provided or under which interactions must be considered; consequently, the scope of provisions with which the concessional regime must be read may be broader in the later text. From the Bill text alone: the regime, as drafted there, excludes interaction with Part E; Document 1 includes Part E-thereby potentially changing the applicability of certain rates and interactions. (All conclusions are based on the textual difference; no external facts are stated.)
      • Clause (b) scope language: In the Bill (Document 2) clause (b)(ii) limits the 22% treatment to income "in respect of which no specific rate of tax has been provided separately under this Part." The later version (Document 1) instead references "under Parts A, B, E and this Part."
        • Practical impact: The Bill's narrower reference confines the carve-out to this Part only; the later version's wider reference brings within its ambit any specific rates provided in Parts A, B or E. This alters which incomes qualify for the 22% treatment under clause (b) depending on whether specific rates are in Parts A/B/E.
      • Specific cross-references and subsection numbering: The Bill lists "sections 45(2)(c) and 47(1)(b)" while the later text lists "section 45(2) or 47(1)(b)." The Bill cites "Chapter VIII other than sections 146 and 148" (plural) while the later text says "Chapter VIII other than section 146 or 148" (singular/or). The Bill refers to "section 205(1)(a) to (g)" (as a range) whereas the later text uses "sections specified in 205(1)(a) to (g)." The Bill cites "section 116(1)" whereas the later text cites "section 116."
        • Practical impact: These are drafting/precision differences. Where a specific sub-clause is cited in the Bill (e.g., 45(2)(c)), that confines the exclusion to that sub-clause rather than the whole of 45(2). Likewise, citing 116(1) narrows reference to that sub-subsection rather than section 116 as a whole. The practical consequence is interpretive: the Bill's more specific references potentially narrow the exclusions from deduction/set-off; the later text's broader references widen them. Absent other material, the Bill's text would limit the non-allowance of specific deductions to the narrowly enumerated paragraphs, whereas the later text indicates a broader non-allowance.
      • Minor drafting/format differences: Variations in plurality and punctuation (e.g., "such option, once exercised, shall apply to subsequent tax years;" appears same in both) do not change substance.
        • Practical impact: Minimal, limited to clarity and potential interpretive emphasis.

      Practical Implications

      • Compliance and risk areas: Companies must track the temporal eligibility windows (set-up/registration and commencement dates), adhere to the option exercise deadline linked to section 263(1), and monitor continued fulfilment of conditions annually because a breach invalidates the option prospectively. The prohibition on certain deductions and set-offs requires careful computation and documentation to demonstrate attribution of losses/depreciation to excluded deductions.
      • Record-keeping/evidence: The text implies the necessity of contemporaneous evidence of incorporation/registration date, date of commencement of manufacturing/production, records establishing the nature of income (manufacturing versus non-manufacturing), allocation studies to show whether losses or depreciation are attributable to excluded deductions, and records evidencing exercise of the option within the prescribed manner and deadline. Specific forms/procedures for exercise are Not stated in the document.

      Key Takeaways

      • Clause 201 offers an elective concessional tax computation for newly set-up domestic manufacturing companies with fixed percentage tax rates for categories of income.
      • The option is time-sensitive, irrevocable once exercised, and may be invalidated upon failure to meet conditions in any year.
      • Certain deductions and set-offs are excluded when computing total income for purposes of the regime; precise cross-referenced sections limit allowable deductions.
      • Eligibility is contingent on incorporation/registration and commencement dates; these temporal thresholds are integral to qualification.
      • On amalgamation, the option survives only if the amalgamated company continues to satisfy the enumerated conditions.
      • Interplay with other Parts and sections is extensive; precise statutory cross-references create interpretive points that may require careful statutory construction.
      • Procedures, prescribed manner of exercising the option, and exact forms or rules for implementation are Not stated in the document.

      Full Text:

      Section 201 Tax on income of new manufacturing domestic companies.

      Topics

      ActsIncome Tax